Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A massive scandal has
Speaker 1: rocked Canadian politics. You have Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: in multiple instances and not that long ago of blackface conduct.
Speaker 1: So we will talk about what that means for the
Speaker 1: Prime minister up there. He's in a reelection battle. Also,
Speaker 1: there's a whistleblower who says that President Trump did something
Speaker 1: very very bad. We don't know what it is. The
Speaker 1: deep State strikes back that and more coming up on
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again, The buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst brother,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. No, I think this is something that,
Speaker 1: like everything that you have to evaluate on a case
Speaker 1: by case basis. This is something that I take seriously
Speaker 1: and I take responsibility for. I'm just off of myself. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I'm disappointed in myself and I'm apologizing to Canadian Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck Sexton Show. All of a sudden, we
Speaker 1: are focused on Canadian politics. A Justin Trudeau. He is
Speaker 1: a somewhat beloved figure on the left he is considered
Speaker 1: very telegenic. He is a self professed male feminist, and
Speaker 1: now we find out had not just one instance, but
Speaker 1: really a habit, a habit of dressing in at least
Speaker 1: three instances in black face or it's also people have
Speaker 1: preferred to it as brown face to look like he's
Speaker 1: from South Asia, for example. I believe they think that
Speaker 1: or the Middle East. There one photo I believe he
Speaker 1: dresses up as is it at Arabian Nights party. So yes,
Speaker 1: that we Middle Eastern. So he painted his face and
Speaker 1: his arms brown. You can see the photos for yourself.
Speaker 1: This let me just say, and I you know this,
Speaker 1: I hate cancel culture. The day will come, mark my
Speaker 1: words when all of you are going to have to
Speaker 1: stand beside me when I say something that's not wrong
Speaker 1: or bad, because I'm a good person who doesn't say
Speaker 1: wrong or bad things, but says something that somehow the
Speaker 1: left will try to turn into me being a bad guy,
Speaker 1: or me being a racist, or me being whatever, And
Speaker 1: it will be on all of you to just say, no,
Speaker 1: we know Buck. We've listened to Buck for a long time.
Speaker 1: We know, we know his heart, we know his mind,
Speaker 1: and that's just not real cancel culture is terrible, all right.
Speaker 1: This decision that was made within the corridors of the
Speaker 1: elite lag in journalism, media, the academy over the last
Speaker 1: ten years or so, to just try to find something
Speaker 1: in someone's background, even if at the time it was
Speaker 1: more more commonplace or less. And I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: blackfaced specifically, just any number of things. Support of gay marriage,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, support of same sex gosh sport of traditional marriage.
Speaker 1: What I'm trying to say is enough to get you
Speaker 1: fired from your job, even at a time when Barack
Speaker 1: Obama himself was a traditional marriage politician, right saying that
Speaker 1: he was for a traditional marriage. So they've gone back
Speaker 1: into people's past to try to destroy them. We know
Speaker 1: what happens here, right, hypocrisy. We know that conservatives are
Speaker 1: held to one standard, Liberals are held to another. And
Speaker 1: the conservative standard is if we can get you, we're
Speaker 1: gonna get you. The liberals standard is, oh, let's talk
Speaker 1: about nuance and all the good This person has done.
Speaker 1: This just in Trudeau conference was astounding. This guy was
Speaker 1: It was just he was groveling, pleading. Oh, I'm so
Speaker 1: so sorry, and I just I understand my privilege and
Speaker 1: I've I've lived a life with so much privilege, and
Speaker 1: I know that that privilege. He just kept repeating the
Speaker 1: word like there's some evil guy named privilege that made
Speaker 1: him do this. Was it one case, by the way,
Speaker 1: And it wasn't like he got drunk. One nine said
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do this stupid thing. He went to a party.
Speaker 1: He did this three times, he according to the Daily
Speaker 1: Mail here. The three photos have emerged in the last
Speaker 1: twenty four hours, showing him in black face. In one,
Speaker 1: he addressed up to seeing Dao on stage at a
Speaker 1: high school, which is a well known Jamaican folk song
Speaker 1: about the country's working class, according to Daily Mail here.
Speaker 1: In another one, he wore brown makeup to attend an
Speaker 1: Arabian Nights party at age twenty nine, and a third
Speaker 1: undated photo showed him in full black face in a
Speaker 1: video three times. This guy does this three times and
Speaker 1: in the two thousands. This isn't thirty years ago. It's
Speaker 1: like ten, fifteen years ago, fifteen years ago. This isn't
Speaker 1: back in the eighties. Not that I would make it, okay,
Speaker 1: but this is even more recent. And this guy is
Speaker 1: all the libs love him. He's their favorite. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he's so they say, he's so handsome and smart and
Speaker 1: liberal and worldly and sophistically. His dad was prime minister.
Speaker 1: He's a spoiled brat. Oh, but I am so good
Speaker 1: for Canada. I'm here, I am very handsome. Just In Trudeau.
Speaker 1: I just want to say the most liberal platitude in
Speaker 1: this stuff possible, and not to know today he's got
Speaker 1: a little bit of a different a little bit of
Speaker 1: a different situation going for himself. Today he's got a problem.
Speaker 1: I think that people have particular schadenfreuder here. It's a
Speaker 1: great word that you know. Germans do have some words
Speaker 1: that are really really useful. Schadenfreud is one of them.
Speaker 1: We are enjoying watching Trudeau in particular squirm and man
Speaker 1: is he squirmy right, I am so sorry about my
Speaker 1: privilege because all of the privilege that I've had for
Speaker 1: the many decades of my prig It's like, dude, come on,
Speaker 1: wokeness in the past isn't supposed to be a free pass,
Speaker 1: or rather wokens today. He isn't supposed to be a
Speaker 1: free pass to do anything in your past. But he
Speaker 1: seemed to think so this is the same Justin Trudeau,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't really have a French act. I like
Speaker 1: to do like a cross between Justin Trudeau and some
Speaker 1: guy named Jean Pierre, who is you know, trapping beever
Speaker 1: pelts up in Hudson Bay. You know where you get
Speaker 1: the offense the best prize in the trapping in the
Speaker 1: Hudson Bay, monsieur. I like that French Canadian mountee kind
Speaker 1: of thing. Anyway, he doesn't sound like that, I know,
Speaker 1: so I should stand my Justin Trudeau impression really needs
Speaker 1: to get a lot better. But here he is speaking
Speaker 1: of Justin Trudeau and how he sounds. Here he is
Speaker 1: at a at a some kind of forum, and a
Speaker 1: woman who's on his side, mind you, a fellow liberal,
Speaker 1: gets up to speak, and he corrects her. Maternal love
Speaker 1: is the love that's going to change the future of mankind.
Speaker 1: So we'd like you to look. We would like to
Speaker 1: say people kind, not necessarily mankind. It's more inclusive, exactly.
Speaker 1: We'd like to say. We like to say people kind.
Speaker 1: I think John your correct Sir Trudeau just mansplained to
Speaker 1: say that it must be people kind. He doesn't let
Speaker 1: her live her truth. He doesn't know what kind of
Speaker 1: struggles she has had with the usage of the term
Speaker 1: mankind versus people kind. Why not humankinds your Missieur Trudeau,
Speaker 1: But that's he is a smug, sanctimonious live I mean,
Speaker 1: the worst kind. And we've seen so many people. We
Speaker 1: just had a an SNL. SNL cast member got fired
Speaker 1: from his job in this obviously that's in this country,
Speaker 1: although Lauren Michaels is Canadian. Fun fact, the guy who
Speaker 1: runs SNL, we had him. I don't remember the guy's name.
Speaker 1: He didn't really make it onto the cast. He's got fired.
Speaker 1: He said he said he used a racial slur about Asians,
Speaker 1: and you know that's going to get you in a
Speaker 1: lot of trouble. But I would just note that, okay,
Speaker 1: he's a racial slur. Justin Trudeau is dressing in blackface
Speaker 1: multiple times. He clearly thought this was really funny. He
Speaker 1: clearly thought this was like edgy and cool. What a moron.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's always been, by the way, he's always
Speaker 1: been an empty suit. He's always been a guy that
Speaker 1: you know, just because he looks a certain way and
Speaker 1: uses a certain phrases. You know, Oh, I am I
Speaker 1: just think that we should say people kind, and I'm
Speaker 1: good to stare longingly into your eyes Canada. Does you
Speaker 1: know it's the whole thing. It's just intellectually flimsy got
Speaker 1: where he is because of who daddy is. And you know,
Speaker 1: now here we are dealing with once again liberals cannot
Speaker 1: live by the rules that they want to make conservatives
Speaker 1: live by. They can't live by them. You had Northamb
Speaker 1: in Virginia, not just not just in a black face photo,
Speaker 1: also with a KKK guy, you know, in a costume,
Speaker 1: and his story, I mean, the Trudeau is just saying, please,
Speaker 1: don't be don't hate me. I am, I will do
Speaker 1: all of the social justice things you want. I promise.
Speaker 1: You know. Northam's thing was like, yeah, that's not me. Well,
Speaker 1: like my friend, it is you. Okay, we're not idiots,
Speaker 1: it's you. No, no, that's not me. And then Mark
Speaker 1: Harring came out. And Mark Harry, who is the not
Speaker 1: the number two but the number three in the I
Speaker 1: think he's a state attorney general in Virginia. He says, yeah,
Speaker 1: he should, you know, Northham should probably step down. And
Speaker 1: then it comes out that Mark Harring had a black
Speaker 1: face issue, if memory serves, and he's just like, what
Speaker 1: is with these guys, Libs, Democrats, Justin Trudeau. If you're
Speaker 1: making a global index of the top ten social justice
Speaker 1: warriors in politics, I think Justin Trudeau would be a
Speaker 1: top ten, probably be top five. Who stops somebody and says,
Speaker 1: we prefer to say people kind. I mean, what kind
Speaker 1: of smug nonsense is that? And yet now we find
Speaker 1: out that not only is he annoying, it turns out
Speaker 1: he has horrible judgment horrible generally three times. I even
Speaker 1: I don't even think Northam was in three instances of
Speaker 1: black face, as much as he's a liar about the
Speaker 1: black face incident that he had three separate times this sky.
Speaker 1: You know, I haven't been to that many costume parties
Speaker 1: as an adult period, So I mean, I mean, by
Speaker 1: the way, when he was asked, oh my gosh, there's
Speaker 1: even more when when he was asked at this press conference,
Speaker 1: which was great viewing today. I watched almost all of it,
Speaker 1: but occasionally would switch back into ah way, monsieur jumpel
Speaker 1: Justin Trudeau he going to the whole He actually would
Speaker 1: switch into the French. He had to watch it go
Speaker 1: back and forth. But one of the one of the
Speaker 1: members of the press, all of a sudden said, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, UM, can you just tell us are
Speaker 1: these all the black face photos that are going to emerge?
Speaker 1: And he can't. He's like, well, I don't know. It's um,
Speaker 1: there are certainly three of them. And I am so
Speaker 1: sad because my privilege just got the best of me
Speaker 1: and privilege is so pervasive, and you know, he just
Speaker 1: just blatter, just trying to Oh, I'm so sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry. I'm so sorry. But he can't tell us
Speaker 1: if there's I mean, John, here's here's here's a fun
Speaker 1: here's a fun game. Do you know how many you
Speaker 1: know how many black face photos there are of me
Speaker 1: in existence? Zero? You know how many black faced photos
Speaker 1: there are of you in existence? Zero? It's just not hard.
Speaker 1: This is not hard. So what is this? Uh? I
Speaker 1: don't know if there's Marrie, this guy Trudeau. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: just such a self righteous fraud folks about all this stuff?
Speaker 1: How homogic cares? And because here, let me just say this.
Speaker 1: If Trudeau were a guy who was always fighting for
Speaker 1: free speech and he was one of these liberals that
Speaker 1: still believed in liberty at some level, I don't think
Speaker 1: we should have cancel culture. I think we should give
Speaker 1: good people the benefit of the doubt. People can misspeak,
Speaker 1: people can share the wrong idea at the wrong time.
Speaker 1: You know that can happen. If you were that guy,
Speaker 1: I would say, Okay, you know, maybe maybe you gave
Speaker 1: him a little bit of slacker. But no, the guy
Speaker 1: who says you can't say mankind say people kind can't
Speaker 1: even tell you if there's a fourth or fifth Maybe
Speaker 1: it doesn't. He doesn't know. Black faced photos of him
Speaker 1: out there. This, my friends, is liberalism today. This is
Speaker 1: leftism in America, in Canada, in Europe. It is an
Speaker 1: ideology that is all about the elevation of ego at
Speaker 1: the expense of reason and truth and facts and decency
Speaker 1: and honor and integrity. It's just believe this thing, do
Speaker 1: what we say. Believe this thing, and you'll be one
Speaker 1: of the good people, and you'll be able to get
Speaker 1: away with things that the other people won't. You will
Speaker 1: be elite by just by virtue of agreeing with this
Speaker 1: political machinery. Use the words we say, agree with the
Speaker 1: policies that we prescribe, and you will be among the elite.
Speaker 1: You'll be on the side of the good people and
Speaker 1: the smart people. Meanwhile, the rest of us say, what
Speaker 1: happened to decency, honor, integrity, individual freedom, individual rights? How
Speaker 1: about any of that? Does that ever get talked about
Speaker 1: here now? Of course not. Social justice is the only
Speaker 1: justice that matters to them. Do I think Trudeau is
Speaker 1: going to lose because of this? I'm not a good
Speaker 1: person to gauge where Canadian politics are going, but I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. They'll forgive him whenever a liberal
Speaker 1: messes up, whenever a liberal should be canceled. Under cancel culture,
Speaker 1: we have conversations about nuance and forgiveness and second chances.
Speaker 1: When a conservative makes a mistake, even a much much
Speaker 1: smaller mistake than this, any Republican, anyone in Trump's circle,
Speaker 1: Trump himself, it's because he's evil, needs to be cast out,
Speaker 1: lose his job, lose his career, lose his reputation. The
Speaker 1: only way to stop this is to fight back. We
Speaker 1: either make them live by these rules, or we refuse
Speaker 1: to live by these rules. But we can't let them
Speaker 1: have it both ways. And we'll see what happens here
Speaker 1: with Trudeau. But I can promise you Libs want to
Speaker 1: have it both ways. We got a much more show.
Speaker 1: Come and stay with me. I was on Outnumbered today
Speaker 1: on Fox and the subject of Greta Thunberg came up,
Speaker 1: or rather I brought it up in the context of
Speaker 1: a climate change discussion. And let me just say that
Speaker 1: I one hundred percent stand behind exactly what I said,
Speaker 1: would say it the same way, and I respectfully disagree
Speaker 1: and would say that some of my colleagues on the
Speaker 1: couch today we're wrong in what they said to me
Speaker 1: in response. So we were talking about climate change and
Speaker 1: the absurdity of some of the climate change stuff that's
Speaker 1: going on. Later we'll discuss confessing your climate change sins
Speaker 1: at NBC. Here is how this exchange at the very
Speaker 1: end of the show today, which has now been turned
Speaker 1: into a left wing news story, and they're saying that
Speaker 1: I'm a kid basher. Play the clip. And they also
Speaker 1: had this young girl who's spent sixteen about the FED
Speaker 1: rate next mine because he's a kid. Yeah, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not picking, but she start fining about climate change in
Speaker 1: front of Congress. She actually, well, let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about no kid bashing. Yeah, no kid bashing,
Speaker 1: especially a kid who is more alert to the challenges
Speaker 1: that are facing our planet. Thank Okay, I'm sorry. No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry all the women, and I like them all
Speaker 1: very much. They're very kind to have me on their show.
Speaker 1: They were all wrong there. That is wrong. I was
Speaker 1: not kid bashing. I said, should Congress ask her about
Speaker 1: the Federate? That's a completely legitimate way of posing the question,
Speaker 1: which is, should Congress be asking a sixteen year old
Speaker 1: girl about an enormously complicated scientific, environmental, and economic issue
Speaker 1: in the United States Congress? Should this be done? The
Speaker 1: answer is no, unless you're a crazy person. I did
Speaker 1: not bash her. I did not make fun of her,
Speaker 1: and no honest person could say otherwise. I am sorry,
Speaker 1: but my colleagues that on the couch were wrong. They
Speaker 1: were wrong. You heard the audio. That was what happened. Ah.
Speaker 1: But now The Daily Beast, one of the great trash
Speaker 1: heap websites in existence, just full of wokeness and leftists
Speaker 1: or trying to out hit each other, I mean out
Speaker 1: you know, being more hip than one another. Here's what
Speaker 1: they wrote. Conservative pundit Buck Sexton seemingly thought on Thursday
Speaker 1: afternoon he was in a safe space to mock sixteen
Speaker 1: year old climate activist Greta Fundburg by appearing on Fox
Speaker 1: news he apparently thought wrong. While sitting as the lone
Speaker 1: male guest of Outnumbered, Sexton joined forces with co host
Speaker 1: Blah Blah blah climate change of religious belief for people
Speaker 1: who think they're too smart for religion sex and said,
Speaker 1: which is true. By the way, they're asking for forgiveness.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's a world where it makes a difference.
Speaker 1: The biggest weakness with this stuff this is again quoting
Speaker 1: me has always been the spokesperson for the movement. They
Speaker 1: also have this young girl who is what sixteen? We're
Speaker 1: gonna ask her about the FED rate next, he snarked,
Speaker 1: you're damn right. I did. Absolutely, I will double down.
Speaker 1: I will triple down. It is absurd, absolutely absurd to
Speaker 1: have a sixteen year old girl testifying to Congress and saying,
Speaker 1: I want you to be scared, you must take action.
Speaker 1: The world's gonna end like we're all a bunch of morons.
Speaker 1: It's on Congress for bringing her in there. If they
Speaker 1: brought a five year old in to give us a
Speaker 1: lesson on voter suppression, I would say that Congress is
Speaker 1: being stupid and they shouldn't ask a five year old
Speaker 1: about this. And anyway, I mean Jessica who he's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: and I like Jessica, but the whole she's more a
Speaker 1: lot more that Greta is more attuned to the No.
Speaker 1: Greta is a sixteen year old girl who doesn't know
Speaker 1: what she's talking about, So Congress should not give her
Speaker 1: the platform. I stand behind it. Bring it Daily Beast,
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry, but the ladies in the couch today
Speaker 1: they're a little bit out of order on that one.
Speaker 1: A little bit, a little bit right now. And I
Speaker 1: where I go lobbying or I was just spending like
Speaker 1: three days straight with my organization zero Hour. We were
Speaker 1: on the Capitol for three days straight, just lobbying, having
Speaker 1: meetings and meetings and meetings and meetings, and what we
Speaker 1: get all the time as politicians who will not pledge
Speaker 1: to take any action, they'll just pat us on the
Speaker 1: head and be like, good job. You know you're so cute.
Speaker 1: Ear soon firing. Maybe someday you should run for office
Speaker 1: and you can take action on climate which is messed
Speaker 1: up because we only have about eighteen months left in
Speaker 1: order to create the political environment in order to solve
Speaker 1: the climate crisis before it's too late. So as a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old throwing it on for them to throw
Speaker 1: it on a seventeen year old shoulders and say, oh,
Speaker 1: when you grow up, you can do this. Will know
Speaker 1: by the time I grew up, it's too late. So
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, on Monday, I got to meet
Speaker 1: Alexandro Kazio Cortez, who is a congresswoman who is an
Speaker 1: icon of mine, and I look up to her, and
Speaker 1: so the goal is, you know, I was standing out
Speaker 1: there in the balcony where presidents are inaugurated, and I
Speaker 1: was looking out and I was like, maybe I'll be
Speaker 1: standing up here getting inaugurated someday. So it's not like
Speaker 1: that that dream is gone. But my dream is not
Speaker 1: to become an elected official so I can solve the
Speaker 1: climate crisis, because by the time I'm old enough to
Speaker 1: be an elected official, it's going to be way too late. Now.
Speaker 1: Am I allowed? I just want to know, am I
Speaker 1: allowed to criticize what was said here? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a climate activist who's meeting with members of Congress,
Speaker 1: who's getting airtime on TV, Seattle Times, Rolling Own all.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're all doing these big, glowing editorials
Speaker 1: and pieces on climate activist Jamie Markolan. But she's seventeen.
Speaker 1: So if I say what she's saying has no basis
Speaker 1: in reality and is entirely wrong, am I? That is
Speaker 1: that kid bashing? Can I wait till she's eighteen? Does
Speaker 1: that to criticize what she says? Is that the rule?
Speaker 1: I just want to know what the rules are. We
Speaker 1: all knew all a long. It's just so funny. I've
Speaker 1: been telling you that they send this this young girl
Speaker 1: from Sweden to do this specifically. It's really just a
Speaker 1: trap for criticism. It's meant to do exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: But I'm not going to back down. I don't care.
Speaker 1: But it's meant to be exactly what happened with me, which,
Speaker 1: as you say, this is silly, which it is. This
Speaker 1: is stupid, which it is. Congress should not be giving
Speaker 1: a platform to a teenager on this complicated issue and
Speaker 1: treating her opinions on this with some deference in elevating it.
Speaker 1: It's it is absurd. And now you've got another situation.
Speaker 1: Or Jamie Markland seventeen, I met with the I think
Speaker 1: it's called the Sunshine Foundation or some thing, or the
Speaker 1: Sunshine Group. I forget that. But it's this climate change
Speaker 1: activist group of kids. And I don't mean seventeen year olds,
Speaker 1: I mean like twelve year olds, and they gather and
Speaker 1: they go and remember when I think it was Diane
Speaker 1: Feinstein was like, well, maybe like you should actually learn
Speaker 1: something a little kid, and kind of patted them on
Speaker 1: the head when one of the kids was saying, you know,
Speaker 1: you have to save the world or else. They are
Speaker 1: fearmongering to your children. They're teaching them this in public school.
Speaker 1: They are brainwashing them with this lunacy. And then when
Speaker 1: you try to deep program the kids or say what
Speaker 1: the kids are saying is even accurate, you're a bad
Speaker 1: You're kid bashing, classic victimology, left wing tactics. You're oh, oh,
Speaker 1: could you use a kid. I'm I'm making fun of
Speaker 1: these young girls. I would be that wouldn't be a
Speaker 1: cool move. That's not okay. I'm not making fun of them.
Speaker 1: I'm making fun of the elevation of children into political
Speaker 1: discourse by people who are being disingenuous, by adults who
Speaker 1: are being frauds, who won't admit that what they're doing
Speaker 1: is crass, is exploitative. You know how many more teenagers
Speaker 1: get to lecture me or the whole country and go
Speaker 1: to our United States Congress. Get on TV. Even Jake
Speaker 1: Tapper the most smug, annoying live on television. Jake Tapper
Speaker 1: had did all peace on Greta Thunberg guest rate. Do
Speaker 1: you think that he was like, yeah, maybe this is
Speaker 1: a little bit a little bit much. No, of course,
Speaker 1: not at all. She's so brave trying to help save
Speaker 1: the planet. You know, real fights, real existential conflicts involved,
Speaker 1: choices involved, trade offs are hard. Walking around and talking
Speaker 1: about how you want to save the planet all the
Speaker 1: time by doing some vague thing that will maybe cut
Speaker 1: some CO two is just a waste. It's a waste
Speaker 1: of air, a waste of energy, a waste of money,
Speaker 1: a waste of effort. But it's so self aggrandizing. Oh
Speaker 1: it makes you feel so important. I'm saving the world.
Speaker 1: I'm saving the world. Who could be more worthy? I
Speaker 1: swear it. Really it's just drives me nuts. Drives me nuts,
Speaker 1: really does? It is so disingenuous the way this debate
Speaker 1: ends up happening. And I've been telling you about all week.
Speaker 1: They're gonna have it edits sure enough, Daily beasts. Oh
Speaker 1: and other sides are picking us up now. Conservative pundit
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton thought he'd get away, thought he'd get away
Speaker 1: with what saying that it's ridiculous that a sixteen year
Speaker 1: old is testifying in front of the Congress about climate change,
Speaker 1: not about like high school or what it's like to
Speaker 1: deal with bullying. That I can understand. There's actual expertise there,
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old on climate change. No, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: doesn't know anything. Doesn't mean she's a bad person. I'm
Speaker 1: not putting her down. I'm sure she believes everything she
Speaker 1: says and she's well intentioned. That's all fine. But the
Speaker 1: Democrats and the Congress that are bringing it there are
Speaker 1: a bunch of clowns. Stand by it one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Not gonna change. No one's gonna make me change on
Speaker 1: this because I'm right, and you know him right. Being
Speaker 1: right these days not enough, Oh nope, Not when the
Speaker 1: woke police come for you. Not when the social justice
Speaker 1: warriors think that they can, you know, add add one
Speaker 1: conservative to the body count. You're gonna have to do
Speaker 1: better than that, Libs. Not today, Not on my watch, Hey, Libs,
Speaker 1: I don't think I'll let you be arresting me today.
Speaker 1: Be hand. I think that's where we are on this one,
Speaker 1: and I have to say I was I was disappointed
Speaker 1: with the reaction on the couch. My point was not
Speaker 1: only not only was my point not worthy of the accusation,
Speaker 1: My point was correct. I would make it again a
Speaker 1: hundred times. I'm right. You know that I'm right, which
Speaker 1: is why you listen to the show, because it's the
Speaker 1: best show. We'll be right back. First of all, I
Speaker 1: want to thank the whistleblower for coming forward, for having
Speaker 1: the courage to follow the procedures as they're written in law,
Speaker 1: to make a lawful disclosure to the Congress and to
Speaker 1: the Inspector General of conduct that was gravely concerning to
Speaker 1: the whist a blower. Under the law, when a whistle
Speaker 1: blower does that, the Inspector General has two weeks to
Speaker 1: investigate that complaint, to determinis urgent and credible, and to
Speaker 1: afford that complaint to the Director of National Intelligence. The
Speaker 1: Inspector General made exactly those determinations, found that this was
Speaker 1: within the jurisdiction of the Director of National Intelligence, that
Speaker 1: it was an urgent matter, and it met the statutory
Speaker 1: requirements that it dealt with a serious or flagrant abuse,
Speaker 1: violational law, or other misconduct or misuse of resources. What
Speaker 1: then is supposed to happen is the Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence has seven days to review the complaint, and then
Speaker 1: they shall provide it to the Congress, and they shall
Speaker 1: instruct through the Inspector General, the whistle blower how the
Speaker 1: whistle blower can come directly to Congress. In the absence
Speaker 1: of that whistle blower law, there is no lawful mechanism
Speaker 1: for an intelligence community employer, detail layer contractor to raise
Speaker 1: a complaint about serious misconduct. Libs will never learn. Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Eddie, are so much from Shifty Shift there,
Speaker 1: But the libs will never ever learn. They just can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. They will believe what Adam Shift says. They
Speaker 1: will run with this story. You would think, given the
Speaker 1: very recent and in depth and repeated history of oh
Speaker 1: now they've got Oh there's a new thing that came
Speaker 1: out about Trump, this is it, He's done, maybe newspapers
Speaker 1: would be a little more circumspect, just a little more
Speaker 1: skeptical before they ran with, oh, whistleblower, very serious things
Speaker 1: about President Trump, very serious. Oh my gosh, Trump's days
Speaker 1: in office are numbered. I assure you they're only numbered
Speaker 1: by the next election, and the next elections looking really good.
Speaker 1: What is that? What is the heart of this whistleblower complaint? Well,
Speaker 1: before I even get into the details of it, I
Speaker 1: can tell you this, there's no shortage of people inside
Speaker 1: the federal government, particularly inside the federal bureaucracy, who are
Speaker 1: part of the hashtag resistance. They think that Trump is
Speaker 1: a bad and evil man, and anything that they have
Speaker 1: to do, anything that they must do in order to
Speaker 1: fight back against Trump, including misuse of their official position,
Speaker 1: including violating their oaths of office, they feel justified in that.
Speaker 1: And if they can find a way to use the system,
Speaker 1: you know, like Komey and McCabe and Brennan and Yates
Speaker 1: and Clapper and Struck and Page, and if they can
Speaker 1: find a way to use the government system itself against
Speaker 1: the president for political purposes, they think that's a great idea.
Speaker 1: They see no problem with that or in that. In fact,
Speaker 1: they just see an opportunity. That's what they see, and
Speaker 1: that's so that's the That's just the necessary backdrop I
Speaker 1: think for our understanding of this whistleblower complaint. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what are we going to do here on the same
Speaker 1: week when they're all they're they're subpoenaing Trump's taxes. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's a whistleblower complaint. Oh the emoluments class. It just
Speaker 1: it's hard. It's hard to keep up on this, it
Speaker 1: really is. So this is from CNN aka Anti Trump Central.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, don't get mad at me for
Speaker 1: reading from CNN. It's just if you want to know
Speaker 1: what the Trump haters are saying, you got a one
Speaker 1: stop shop at CNN. It is the Trump Derangement News Network.
Speaker 1: Here's what it says. The Intelligence Inspector General suggested the
Speaker 1: House intelligence community today that the whistleblower had concerns about
Speaker 1: multiple actions. Oh no, good, heavens. The Inspector General did
Speaker 1: not specifically say all the acts of concern involved the president.
Speaker 1: One source said the Inspector General referenced a sequence of
Speaker 1: events and alleged actions that took place. Another source disputed
Speaker 1: that the Inspector General provided substantive details regarding the whistleblower claim.
Speaker 1: CNN earlier reported, citing a source familiar with the case,
Speaker 1: the complaint was prompted by concerns over a phone call
Speaker 1: between the president and a foreign leader Inspector General Michael
Speaker 1: Atkinson was pressed for details, but was mostly resistant to
Speaker 1: the queries, saying he is not allowed to provide details
Speaker 1: of the substance of the complaint because he was not
Speaker 1: authorized to do so. He's discussing the process for his
Speaker 1: handling of the whistleblowers concerns. So here we go. Now
Speaker 1: we have another Oh, it could be huge if true,
Speaker 1: huge if true against Trump. That's what they'll say. And
Speaker 1: I saw today and now keeping on this is none
Speaker 1: of this is very First of all, Trump has already
Speaker 1: said this is just fake news, it's crap. None of
Speaker 1: this has been verified. So if this turns out to
Speaker 1: not be the exact story, then you know, excuse me
Speaker 1: for telling you what the crazy stuff is that they're
Speaker 1: saying about Trump, but we have to we have to know.
Speaker 1: Here's what we have been told that Ukrainian President Zelenski
Speaker 1: was on the phone with Trump and this is this
Speaker 1: is the allegation that's out there. And then Trump told
Speaker 1: Zelenski that if you reopen the probe into Biden and
Speaker 1: specifically whether or not Biden made a made the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: fire a prosecutor who was looking at a Ukrainian gas
Speaker 1: gas company or maybe an oil company, gas company, I
Speaker 1: forget fossil fuel company that was paying Hunter Biden, who
Speaker 1: we all know has a very messy past and background,
Speaker 1: paying Hunter Biden millions of dollars, so that prosecutor had
Speaker 1: to get pushed aside. This is the story. And if
Speaker 1: I recall my old colleague at the Hill, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: was the one who broke this story. Colleague, or rather
Speaker 1: that prosecutor. How do you get pushed aside? And now
Speaker 1: there's this story out there that maybe Trump would say
Speaker 1: to him, open up again. What's going to open this
Speaker 1: up again? Take a look at this again? Is this true?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it's very unlikely to be true.
Speaker 1: And I think that the Lib media never learns its
Speaker 1: lesson about whether or not they should just go all
Speaker 1: in on these stories. Although this then goes to my theory,
Speaker 1: which is that the audience for these publications in Your time,
Speaker 1: CNN and elsewhere, they don't get mad when these stories
Speaker 1: are wrong. They understand the intent behind the stories is
Speaker 1: not the truth. The intent behind these stories is to
Speaker 1: attack Trump. And if it works for a few days
Speaker 1: and then it falls apart, well then that's fine because
Speaker 1: for a few days. There was a perception that was created,
Speaker 1: there was a negativity around this. There was an oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, Trump is, you know, terrible, And then when
Speaker 1: it turns out it looks like he's not terrible, or
Speaker 1: at least he's not terrible. For this, they go, well,
Speaker 1: let's just move on past it. Let's just move Once
Speaker 1: we've done the damage, then we move, We move on
Speaker 1: and don't pay any attention to it anymore. Now, once
Speaker 1: we've we've created this mess, we have no journalistic obligation
Speaker 1: to clean it up. I do think that's very likely
Speaker 1: what happened here. Does anybody really believe that there will
Speaker 1: be a reckoning for Trump based on this this whistleblower?
Speaker 1: Of course not. But then again, does anybody really believe
Speaker 1: that there's gonna be a reckoning for Trump based on
Speaker 1: the tax returns in New York State? Of course not.
Speaker 1: New York State already has it at the I R
Speaker 1: s already have you. This is just more blathered, more
Speaker 1: nonsense than the left all the time. Oh, I'm wondering
Speaker 1: when they're going to decide that they hate this. Guy O'Brien,
Speaker 1: who is a President Trump's new national security advisor, just
Speaker 1: a quick note on this is the privilege to serve
Speaker 1: with the president, and do we look forward to to
Speaker 1: another year and a half of peace thro strength. We've
Speaker 1: had tremendous foreign policy successes under President Trump's leadership. I
Speaker 1: expect those to continue. We've got a number of challenges,
Speaker 1: but there's a great team in place with Secretary Pompeo
Speaker 1: and Secretary Esper, Secretary Minute and others. I look forward
Speaker 1: to working with them and working with the President to
Speaker 1: keep Americas safe and continue to rebuild our military and
Speaker 1: and really get us back to a piece of strength. Boster.
Speaker 1: I'll keep about the American people, I say, from the
Speaker 1: many challenges around the world today, Oh my gosh, who
Speaker 1: is this man? Liberal media is going to turn on
Speaker 1: They've never heard of this guy before. Although he did
Speaker 1: get sent he was like the special envoy at the
Speaker 1: behest of the president, a free Asap Rocky, who I
Speaker 1: believe is a hip hop artist whom I learned about
Speaker 1: in the last few months because of some stuff that
Speaker 1: went stuff that went down in Sweden and so O'Brien
Speaker 1: was sent to get Asap Rocky out of Swedish prison,
Speaker 1: which I gotta tell you. In Swedish prison. I think
Speaker 1: they bring you a lot of very well appointed, inexpensive
Speaker 1: furniture that you can build yourself. And the food's probably
Speaker 1: very good. It's a lot of a lot of pickled
Speaker 1: herring and very very expensive beer. For those of you you
Speaker 1: who've been too Stockholm, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: If I look, if I had to go to prison
Speaker 1: and like a relatively major company, I mean a country,
Speaker 1: I think it'd be Sweden. I mean, if you could
Speaker 1: go to prison in Monaco, there's only one jail cell
Speaker 1: and it does have a of the ocean. I remember
Speaker 1: reading about this. But if you're going to go to
Speaker 1: prison in a country with more than ten million people,
Speaker 1: I think it would probably be Sweden. It'll be like,
Speaker 1: is your peer look comfy? Does your peer feel softer?
Speaker 1: Is that no, you'd watched Sesame Street Sweetish the Swedish
Speaker 1: chef Okay whatever. So anyway, they try to get asap
Speaker 1: rocky out or they did get a zap rocky out.
Speaker 1: And now this guy O'Brian is a natural security advisor.
Speaker 1: We need to stop thinking that everybody who's going to
Speaker 1: hold the senior government job is has to be a
Speaker 1: famous person or a person we've all heard of. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's been doing this a long time. He seems fine.
Speaker 1: We'll learn more about him over time. Libs will freak
Speaker 1: out about this. They'll find a way, they just haven't
Speaker 1: found it yet. Trust me, we're not here today because
Speaker 1: of famous Arches or famous Smith. In fact, we're not here.
Speaker 1: We're not here because of man at all. I got
Speaker 1: news for Elizabeth Warren. Without a man, you would not
Speaker 1: be here. In fact, without a man, none of us
Speaker 1: would be here because in fact, there had to have
Speaker 1: been a man involved in the procreation process for any
Speaker 1: of us to exist. So to say that further, you know,
Speaker 1: without a man, I'm just it's just not true. It's
Speaker 1: just factually hashtag fact check. You need to have a
Speaker 1: man or else. Without that, none of us would be
Speaker 1: And a woman, wow, look at that. It's almost you know,
Speaker 1: unitive and procreative. And there's a there's the male and
Speaker 1: the female and they go together and this is what
Speaker 1: this is the species and oh wow, two genders, not
Speaker 1: thirty seven two. But Elizabeth Warren gave her speech down
Speaker 1: in Washington Square Park where as much as producer John
Speaker 1: mocks me, and that's where I do all my speed
Speaker 1: chess searching for Bobby Fisher. Remember that movie. I like
Speaker 1: that movie. I actually watched it a bunch of times.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. I guess just like anything with
Speaker 1: Lawrence Fishburne and Ben Kingsley, I'm like, yeah, I can
Speaker 1: get into this. It's about a little bit. It's about
Speaker 1: a old nerd who plays a lot of chess. Let's
Speaker 1: be honest. He's like, I just I want to play chess,
Speaker 1: but I also want to have friends, you know. It's like, yeah, whatever,
Speaker 1: It's like, I had a let to defeat people of
Speaker 1: the chessboard because that may make them feel bad about themselves.
Speaker 1: It's a kid, You're gonna get so many wedgies unless
Speaker 1: you just, you know, you gotta step it up, buddy.
Speaker 1: You know you gotta be a rude, terrible person. That's
Speaker 1: probably true. Apparently, and apparently a kid basher. All look
Speaker 1: at this, all buckers bashing kids again, bashing little little
Speaker 1: not you, Actually, Bobby Fisher, was that a chess player.
Speaker 1: This guy's name was like Josh something or other I
Speaker 1: think can't remember's name their character from the movie, But yep,
Speaker 1: more kid bashing. Oh you're so mean to the kids.
Speaker 1: It's not true. What you know, we we understand. We
Speaker 1: understand that people say all kinds of things about the
Speaker 1: Buckster that are not true. It's not fair, but that's
Speaker 1: the right life. Life goes on. We have to move on.
Speaker 1: So Elizabeth warrem is down there. And what I think
Speaker 1: is interesting is that today you have the Drudge Report
Speaker 1: essentially say saying that the big headline is Warren rising
Speaker 1: her nomination to lose the crowds the momentum. I do
Speaker 1: think that this is the borrow from Yogi Bearra deja
Speaker 1: vu all over again. I think that Libs didn't learn
Speaker 1: any of the lessons they needed to learn from the
Speaker 1: last time around with Hillary in twenty sixteen. And I
Speaker 1: think that they they view Elizabeth Warren as being able
Speaker 1: to get done what Hillary couldn't. And she brings all that,
Speaker 1: you know, breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, you know, woman's
Speaker 1: empowerment stuff, you know, feminism, blah blah, all that brings
Speaker 1: all that to the table too, all of it, all
Speaker 1: of it. So the problem with Elizabeth Warren is that
Speaker 1: it will come up a lot during the campaign that
Speaker 1: she's not just a fraud. It's not like she just
Speaker 1: did things. Let's say that were shady in business or
Speaker 1: which would be bad. But it's that she's a fraud
Speaker 1: that is worth the ridicule. I mean, she's a fraud.
Speaker 1: And that she was listed in the Harvard Directory as
Speaker 1: the first Native American professor in the history of Harvard
Speaker 1: Law schools. That's something that is worth noting. There was
Speaker 1: a story today in the Babylon B which some of
Speaker 1: you I'm sure familiar with, that was Elizabeth Warren admits
Speaker 1: to appealing. Sorry, Elizabeth Warren admits to appearing in paleface
Speaker 1: at party. So the Babylon B is just one example
Speaker 1: of what you can expect going forward. We have not
Speaker 1: forgotten about the fact that not only did she lie
Speaker 1: about that whole Native American thing to advance her career
Speaker 1: for a very remember, these are all the same people
Speaker 1: at all. Trump lies about this and he lies about that.
Speaker 1: I always ask, what's the big lie that Trump has told?
Speaker 1: You know that that his crowds are the biggest and
Speaker 1: his buildings are the best, and you know that that's
Speaker 1: really just braggadocio, that's exaggeration, that's hyperbole, salesmanship. What's the
Speaker 1: big lie? We're like, oh my gosh, how could Trump
Speaker 1: lie about that. I mean, I don't know what like
Speaker 1: this Stormy Daniel stuff. I thought that in the post
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton era, sexual conduct was considered you know, between
Speaker 1: consenting adults was considered private. And we don't need to
Speaker 1: worry about this, you know. It's just lives constantly changed
Speaker 1: the standards to suit there, to suit their women at
Speaker 1: any point in time. Elizabeth Warren wasn't just somebody who
Speaker 1: used racial fraud to advance her career. She's also someone
Speaker 1: who very clearly still believed or thought that she could
Speaker 1: pull one over on us as recently as what was
Speaker 1: it a year ago now that she came out with
Speaker 1: that DNA test and it was like, look, I'm actually
Speaker 1: Native American. You're like, well you're yeah, you're about one
Speaker 1: one thousand and twenty fourth Native American. Yalloon. It was
Speaker 1: just a crazy thing to do. It was a crazy
Speaker 1: thing to do, but she did it. And she's also
Speaker 1: I just think that she's a complete and utter demagogue.
Speaker 1: And I think that she doesn't really believe out of
Speaker 1: the stuff that she says, or rather she knows that
Speaker 1: it's not true, but you'll say it because it appeals
Speaker 1: to people. But if it's between her and shooes me
Speaker 1: or I don't know where I am Biden. I can
Speaker 1: understand why they might want to go with Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: over Biden. I mean Biden is. Oh, here's here's a
Speaker 1: perfect example. We got a great biden Ism for you.
Speaker 1: You get a tax break for racehorse. Why in God's
Speaker 1: name couldn't we provide a eight thousand dollars tax credit
Speaker 1: for everybody who has childcare costs. It would put it
Speaker 1: would put seven hundred and twenty million back million women
Speaker 1: back in the workforce. It would increase the GDP to
Speaker 1: sound like a wonk here by about eight tenths of
Speaker 1: one percent. It would grow the economy, not not to
Speaker 1: sound like a like a wonk here, but uh you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean at least seven hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: million women in America back in the workforce. He said that. Okay,
Speaker 1: he said it. And look, I do three hours alive
Speaker 1: radio a day. I misspeak sometimes I stumble. People are
Speaker 1: very hard in this audience. By the way, if I
Speaker 1: if I have a day or I'm a little tired,
Speaker 1: a little too many alms, a little too many, a
Speaker 1: little too many, I means I hear about it. Fuck,
Speaker 1: I listen to you because of the precision of your speech,
Speaker 1: and you don't use unnecessary filler words. I expect that
Speaker 1: you keep that tradition going, or else I may just
Speaker 1: have to find somebody else to listen to it. Like
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, man, I was a little a little hungover.
Speaker 1: Me and producer Mark. We're out drinking some muzzo, and
Speaker 1: things got a little crazy. You know what stuff happens?
Speaker 1: Do you like uzzo? By the way, could we do
Speaker 1: that at some point? I think so? Sure? All right, cool,
Speaker 1: drinks a uzzo. I gotta celebrate your your upcoming nuptials.
Speaker 1: But sore, here's what happened, Biden says, seven and twenty
Speaker 1: million women. Look, you can stumble like this. Fine. He
Speaker 1: says it, though, and he doesn't catch it, which makes
Speaker 1: you think that he is he's a practiced demagogue. You know,
Speaker 1: he's just gonna say these things because he thinks it's
Speaker 1: what he's supposed to say. But he doesn't think about
Speaker 1: what he is saying. He doesn't give it any any
Speaker 1: thought processes. It's just, well, this is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: You got the people to clap, he Biden. I mean
Speaker 1: that's that's the approach. And that's what I mean by
Speaker 1: he's a He's a perfect demagogue. That's how he does things.
Speaker 1: Warren's a demagogue too, but at least she knows what
Speaker 1: state she's in, and she doesn't think there are seven
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty million women when as we know, there
Speaker 1: are about three hundred and thirty million people in America.
Speaker 1: So unless there's a whole lot of women who are
Speaker 1: being hidden somewhere, I don't think that there's seven hundred
Speaker 1: million of them here. But then you have, well, what's
Speaker 1: the alternative. Who who's in a who's in a better
Speaker 1: spot than Elizabeth Warren or Biden. I mean, I'm just like,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna go away yet because I'm I'm just
Speaker 1: you know, I really think that we should take all
Speaker 1: of your guns. And and in case you are curious
Speaker 1: about like whether Betteau wants to take your guns away,
Speaker 1: the answer is like, yeah, he does. And he's talking
Speaker 1: of bro Cuomo, Oh yeah, Creatine and swoll Club baby
Speaker 1: boo yah. Are you in fact in favor of gun confiscation? Yes,
Speaker 1: when it comes to R fifteens and AK forty sevens,
Speaker 1: weapons designed for use on a military battlefield, the high impact,
Speaker 1: high velocity round that is fired from those weapons when
Speaker 1: it hits your body. I gotta pause for as I've said,
Speaker 1: there's nothing, there's no such thing as a not high impact,
Speaker 1: not high velocity round coming out of a firearm. You know,
Speaker 1: if you get shot with a with a thirty eight,
Speaker 1: that bullet's going very fast. It's gonna hurt a lot
Speaker 1: and will kill you. You get shot with a twenty
Speaker 1: two close enough, you will be very dead depending on
Speaker 1: where it hits you. They're all high velocity. So unless
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna have a twenty two, but then you have
Speaker 1: well that's not useful particularly it. Now someone's gonna say, buck,
Speaker 1: I can kill a I can kill a deer with
Speaker 1: a twenty two and six hundred meters. You know, we
Speaker 1: always there's somebody in this there's always a wise guy
Speaker 1: in this audience who's like the gun supersmith, who could
Speaker 1: you know? He's like I once had a sling shot
Speaker 1: and I killed the saber tooth tiger while we're in
Speaker 1: myn NRA A T shirt. So I don't think that,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm like, okay, fine, you know you are
Speaker 1: the sling shot guru or whatever, so good, good things.
Speaker 1: But I mean, Beto wants to take your guns. And
Speaker 1: then you have mayor Pete who's just bitter, and then Kamala,
Speaker 1: whoeverone's really forgotten about. The only ones that I the
Speaker 1: only ones that don't really just agitate me that much,
Speaker 1: are Yang and Tulsi. And Tulsi's left wing, don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, and she says things about the president that
Speaker 1: are horrible, that are untrue, But I just I don't
Speaker 1: find her deeply unlikable the way I do most of
Speaker 1: the rest of these Democrat candidates. They're not inspiring charming people.
Speaker 1: You know. Say what you will about Trump, and I
Speaker 1: think he's done a lot of great things as president,
Speaker 1: and I think he's been a very solid president and
Speaker 1: all things considered, and the guy's an incredible entertainer. Is
Speaker 1: an unbelievable energy and electricity that comes from him when
Speaker 1: he's on stage during these arenas, and you're gonna put
Speaker 1: Biden or Warren up against that. I'm here because I
Speaker 1: think that we should not have to rely on men
Speaker 1: to be here, Oh America, Do you really want to
Speaker 1: hear that for the next eight years? Possibly, I hope not.
Speaker 1: We'll go right back. So I'm proposing medicare for all
Speaker 1: who want it. It's it's just a little bit different
Speaker 1: from the idea of medicare for all, whether you want
Speaker 1: it or not. The way I see it, if we
Speaker 1: take a version of medicare, we make it available to
Speaker 1: the American people, and that public alternative, which I expect
Speaker 1: to be better, will outcompete the private ones. But instead
Speaker 1: of just assuming that I'm right and ordering you to
Speaker 1: switch over whether you want to or not, we're gonna
Speaker 1: see if we're right. We're gonna put it out there
Speaker 1: and let Americans choose, because I trust you to make
Speaker 1: the right decision for your family when it comes to
Speaker 1: your health. Think about what this would actually mean they
Speaker 1: at mayor Pete who is I think you could argue
Speaker 1: the I think you could argue the wonkiest of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: meaning the biggest wonk, like the the smartest on policy
Speaker 1: issue of of all the Democrats. I think you could
Speaker 1: argue that. And I think that what he's saying here
Speaker 1: just goes to show you how far left the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party has really gone. Because if you open up a
Speaker 1: public option that someone can just choose, then guess what
Speaker 1: people are going to be pushed onto that. Employers are
Speaker 1: gonna say, why why am I gonna why am I
Speaker 1: going to pay for your healthcare? What I can just say,
Speaker 1: go get the public option. Everybody will just be pushed
Speaker 1: on the meta. You know, the system will break down
Speaker 1: very quickly in this way because a lot of employers
Speaker 1: will say, well, I can get a great savings now
Speaker 1: by pushing you onto the public option. It's going to
Speaker 1: do it. And Medicare already does not pay enough to
Speaker 1: a lot of hospitals to cover their costs of the
Speaker 1: procedures that are done. Medicaid is even lower levels of reimbursement.
Speaker 1: And if you have higher usage of Medicare by people
Speaker 1: in the system through this Medicare for All program, then
Speaker 1: you're just going to increase wait times. You're going to
Speaker 1: create shortages, You're going to create rationing within that program.
Speaker 1: That's just what's going to happen. But liberals still, just
Speaker 1: like with with all central planners, they think this time
Speaker 1: they'll get it right, this time it will be different.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately they're wrong. There's another thing that Mayor Pete had
Speaker 1: to talk about here, and that is and this is
Speaker 1: just a ghoulish and deeply disturbing story. There were there
Speaker 1: was a doctor, a doctor in South Bend, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: in Illinois rather who had two thousand fetal remains found
Speaker 1: in his home. Here's what Mayor Pete said to react
Speaker 1: to this. Like everyone, I find that news out of
Speaker 1: Illinois extremely disturbing, and I think it's important that the
Speaker 1: fully investigated. I also hope that it doesn't get caught
Speaker 1: up in politics at the time when women need access
Speaker 1: to healthcare. There's no question that what happened is disturbing,
Speaker 1: it's unacceptable, and it needs to be looking. This does
Speaker 1: remind me a bit of the liberal position after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven. Remember, the liberal position after an eleven is
Speaker 1: the biggest thing that we have to be concerned about.
Speaker 1: We had almost three thousand Americans killed, died in crashes,
Speaker 1: some of them died in fires, jumped out of buildings,
Speaker 1: crushed to death, almost three thousand them. And the primary
Speaker 1: liberal takeaway from this for a lot of publications and
Speaker 1: a lot of liberal journos is I have to really
Speaker 1: watch out for all that is homophobia. Here we have
Speaker 1: a story about a doctor who was keeping thousands of
Speaker 1: dead babies at his home, and you notice how Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete immediately switches into Yeah, that's a little that's that's disturbing.
Speaker 1: Let's just hope it doesn't affect women's right to terminate
Speaker 1: a pregnancy and to do this procedure that leads to
Speaker 1: the dead babies. This is a piece today from David Mastio.
Speaker 1: Abortionist Ulrich Klepfur kept thousands of dead babies but inspires
Speaker 1: little curiosity. Yeah, this is a story that's gotten largely
Speaker 1: buried by the mainstream media. There's something sick, he writes,
Speaker 1: in America's abortion industry. What else would account for a
Speaker 1: doctor who collected thousands of dead babies in some kind
Speaker 1: of twisted hobby that he hid from his allegedly unsuspecting wife.
Speaker 1: Two thousand, two hundred and forty six fetuses were found
Speaker 1: medically preserved in Ulric Clepfor's garage last week after he
Speaker 1: died on September third, and now the attorneys general of
Speaker 1: Illinois and Indiana are investigating how the human remains got
Speaker 1: from Klepf's network of Indiana abortion clinics to his rural
Speaker 1: Illinois home and what laws might have been violated. Klepfer
Speaker 1: isn't the only abortionist to enjoy keeping trophies of his
Speaker 1: grizzly work close to hand. America's most infamous baby killer,
Speaker 1: Kermit Gosnell, also kept body parts in milk jugs and
Speaker 1: glass jars at his clinic in Philadelphia before he was
Speaker 1: convicted in twenty thirteen on three counts of murder for
Speaker 1: snipping the spinal cords of babies born alive. Like Gosnell,
Speaker 1: Clepfor's clinic shut down after state inspectors found worrying medical
Speaker 1: and record keeping problems two thousand dead babies at this
Speaker 1: guy's house. He was keeping dead babies as though they
Speaker 1: were mementos or trophies. How is this not a major
Speaker 1: national news story? Well, you got a sense from Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete as to exactly why that is. If they have
Speaker 1: to suppress this story, if they have to make sure
Speaker 1: that no one hears about the above ground mass grave
Speaker 1: of dead babies at a doctor's home in Illinois from
Speaker 1: abortion clinics, if they have to make sure that that
Speaker 1: gets suppressed, no one really hears about it, because it'll
Speaker 1: protect those abortion clinics from further scrutiny, then that's all
Speaker 1: completely fine. The Left goes along with it. They have
Speaker 1: no problem with whatsoever, as long as it protects a
Speaker 1: woman's right to choose. Single most important thing ever for
Speaker 1: the left. Mayor Pete, who lectures us all so often
Speaker 1: about the Bible, well, the Bible says this, and the
Speaker 1: Bible says that. I'm quite certain the Bible would have
Speaker 1: a lot to say about keeping the bodies of two
Speaker 1: thousand dead babies at your home over two thousand and
Speaker 1: some kind of sick hobby ritual. We don't even know
Speaker 1: what this guy the guy's dead who was a doctor,
Speaker 1: which is how we found out about this. But liberals
Speaker 1: aren't outraged about this the way they a normal person
Speaker 1: would be. You know why, because they consider I just
Speaker 1: go back to the David Delayed in videos and the
Speaker 1: Center for Medical Progress. They consider these tiny bodies, these
Speaker 1: tiny human beings, the remains of little human beings, to
Speaker 1: be just medical waste like someone's you know, like like
Speaker 1: a tumor that was cut out of somebody, or you know,
Speaker 1: someone's residue after a surgery. That's what they think of this.
Speaker 1: So and they won't admit that publicly, but that is
Speaker 1: the truth. And Mayor Pete is a disgrace for his
Speaker 1: stance on this issue. But we already knew that. The
Speaker 1: other test, and I think this is a test that's
Speaker 1: not well understood by some of the candidates in the
Speaker 1: race and not what has not been well debated is
Speaker 1: is our democracy up to this task? And that is
Speaker 1: a really non trivial question, because I mean, it clearly isn't.
Speaker 1: Right now, so far we have not. We haven't been
Speaker 1: and and and when you lose a national race, as
Speaker 1: we did in sixteen to a climate denier, that creates
Speaker 1: a real concern because you can't act urgently on climate
Speaker 1: if you have a climate denier in the White House?
Speaker 1: What would acting urgently on climate mean? And I would
Speaker 1: want to ask why didn't Obama do this? When Obama
Speaker 1: had a majority in the House and the Congress, I
Speaker 1: mean a House and the Senate. Why didn't he take
Speaker 1: dramatic action? I mean, if we only had you know,
Speaker 1: ten or or twelve years or whatever to live, we
Speaker 1: only had what fifteen or twenty years to live when
Speaker 1: Obama came. If the science is so clear, why didn
Speaker 1: Obama do something? Why does Obama not care if we
Speaker 1: all die from climate change? Clearly it doesn't care. Why
Speaker 1: would Obama buy a fifteen million dollar house on the beach.
Speaker 1: If we were going to be certain that the entire
Speaker 1: Eastern Seaboard floored, a lot of place is going to
Speaker 1: be underwater in thirty years. It seems like a strange
Speaker 1: purchase at least might affect your You could say, well, back,
Speaker 1: he'll sell it when things get really bad. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I would think that you'd be a little more concerned
Speaker 1: about this if you were concerned about it at all,
Speaker 1: which I don't think Obama is. But this climate change thing,
Speaker 1: you can't even make up how absurd this has gotten.
Speaker 1: Now you now have what is it? I think it
Speaker 1: was NBC. I gotta make sure I get this right.
Speaker 1: NBC News had a confess your climate crimes. Yeah, here
Speaker 1: you go, confess your climate crimes on a website, and
Speaker 1: people started putting stuff out there like blast the ac
Speaker 1: cook at this is NBC News. I'm sorry, blast the
Speaker 1: ac cook a steak once a week. Where do you
Speaker 1: fall short in preventing climate change? Tell us with climate confessions?
Speaker 1: Climate confessions? Real thing, brucer Mark, do you have any
Speaker 1: climate confessions? Did you have a burger this week? You
Speaker 1: evil selfish man. I mean, I've been on the diet,
Speaker 1: but I still eat pork and beat and all that
Speaker 1: kind of look at you. Are you going vegan just
Speaker 1: for that, you know, just to get into a wedding shape? Well,
Speaker 1: vegan really put me in wedding shape. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think vegan makes your teeth fall out. And you
Speaker 1: know I'm meeting extra protein. There we go, extra protein? Oh,
Speaker 1: I just kind You have a climate? You are? You?
Speaker 1: Are you a keep the apartment for I keep my
Speaker 1: apartment of sixty eight degrees all the time, all the time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get very warm, very quickly. Yeah, Brucer John, what
Speaker 1: about you? Where do you keep it? You don't have
Speaker 1: a mic? Okay, fine, he's not looking at the mic
Speaker 1: right now. He's busy cutting the show. And I don't
Speaker 1: even have a c That's how environmentally friendly I am. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't buy that for one second. Nonsense. Have you
Speaker 1: ever been in Have you ever been in an apartment?
Speaker 1: When the ac goes out, you have no choice but
Speaker 1: to sleep in it. It is a It is a
Speaker 1: an eye opening experience. Let me tell you that, because
Speaker 1: it's very If you're used to sleep in a sixty
Speaker 1: eight degree room and all of a sudden you're supposed
Speaker 1: to sleep in a seventy five degree room. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: I'll sleep with at least a fan, at least at
Speaker 1: least a fan as absolutely. But so people saw this
Speaker 1: confess your climate sin craziness. Okay, he's some Bennett, they're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, he sounds kind of like good. Okay, guy
Speaker 1: from South Park? You know that guy. What's his name
Speaker 1: that you know? The teacher guy? Who? What's that Michael Bennett? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I know, I know his name is Michael Bennet. Who's
Speaker 1: the teacher from mister Mackie? Thank you? Okay, here he's
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett. Sounds like it. Why did you climate de
Speaker 1: Niro in the Wright House? Okay? People saw this confess
Speaker 1: your climate sin thing, and they they decided to say that,
Speaker 1: like I sleep with the air conditioner on year round
Speaker 1: and justify to myself by recycling. Oh my gosh, I
Speaker 1: fly too much, partially due to work. But on the
Speaker 1: flip side, I do not own a car. I will
Speaker 1: use the easiest method of transportation for the distance I
Speaker 1: am traveling. I travel off into conferences. Flying, I think
Speaker 1: about the emissions and I try to justify with the
Speaker 1: plane is going there anyway? These are people's actual climate confessions.
Speaker 1: They feel guilty about this stuff, They feel concerned about this.
Speaker 1: They think that there's some some issue, some worry that
Speaker 1: they should have because they fly on planes occasionally. Well
Speaker 1: then some other people started pointing out how completely and
Speaker 1: utterly bonkers this is, and they started trolling this thing,
Speaker 1: which was a lot of fun. They're just like, I
Speaker 1: eat steak, I leave the acon at sixty year round. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what that's what we should do. Just lean into him. Man,
Speaker 1: this is the people who leave this They they're nuts.
Speaker 1: They're just wrong. They've lost their minds. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if we use straws, it doesn't matter if you use AC.
Speaker 1: These are all good things. Actually, AC has probably saved
Speaker 1: a lot of lives from heatstroke over the last one
Speaker 1: hundred years. But that's a conversation for another time. The
Speaker 1: origins of this were Ronald Reagan nineteen sixty seven, when
Speaker 1: he wanted to clean up the air down in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles the smog. It led to the Clean Air Act
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy. Richard Nixon in nineteen said, bipartisan they'd
Speaker 1: be rolling their graves right now of what the Republican
Speaker 1: administration is doing, and moreover, what the Republican Party is
Speaker 1: doing complicit complete silence on states rights, but also free enterprise.
Speaker 1: I'll repeat what I just said. They're calling private sector
Speaker 1: corporations to the mat and threatening them. Again. I don't
Speaker 1: think this. I know this from the personal conversations I've
Speaker 1: had and by the actions of the Apartment of Justice.
Speaker 1: What happened to the Republican Party? What happened to California. California,
Speaker 1: for those who just won a little bit of a
Speaker 1: a little bit of a refresher, was in fact a
Speaker 1: pretty reliable Republican state. At the national election level, California
Speaker 1: was a place that was solidly Republican. You had Eisenhower
Speaker 1: back in nineteen fifty two. Okay, so the Golden State.
Speaker 1: The Golden State went for the Republican presidential candidate more
Speaker 1: often than not for a long time. He had two
Speaker 1: solid Reagan victories nineteen eighty four. Nineteen eighty George W.
Speaker 1: Bush won the state of California against Ducacus. But then again,
Speaker 1: I was seven years old, and I wouldn't I would
Speaker 1: have won the state of California against Ducacus in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty eight. But in the twenty sixteen election, For example,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, the scandal ridden, charmless, pantsuit clad ultra grifter
Speaker 1: and twice presidential loser. She crushed President Trump in California
Speaker 1: sixty two point three percent to thirty one point nine percent.
Speaker 1: What has been the huge change there, Well, only twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of the state's almost twenty million registered voters
Speaker 1: or Republicans. So this is now the ultimate liberal stronghold.
Speaker 1: You've had more than anything else. The single, the single
Speaker 1: biggest shift of any kind in California is demographics, and
Speaker 1: it's immigration, particularly illegal immigration from Latin America, notably Mexico,
Speaker 1: but other places as well. And the state is now
Speaker 1: has now been flipped. It's a Democrat state. You're not
Speaker 1: going to win in California statewide, and you're not going
Speaker 1: to win as president. And so then you get to
Speaker 1: what happens in a state where there really is only
Speaker 1: one party in power. Well, there's no real accountability. And
Speaker 1: that's why Gavin Newsom was complaining about Trump and environmental
Speaker 1: regulator rather the lack of environmental regulations. Doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: understand that the rest of us looking at this, say, no,
Speaker 1: California should have to live with the decisions that it
Speaker 1: makes is a state and live with them for quite
Speaker 1: a while. California should have to deal with its own
Speaker 1: bad policies. Right now, there's this big push to get
Speaker 1: federal dollars in to deal with the homelessness crisis there.
Speaker 1: You have a homelessness crisis in San Francisco, a homelessness
Speaker 1: crisis in Los Angeles. When I was in LA I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe six seven months ago, going around, you'll
Speaker 1: just see you'll see what looks like a tent city,
Speaker 1: people living on the streets. And I would note that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of open air drug use, people who
Speaker 1: leave those drug needles in the street. I mean just
Speaker 1: when people say things like leaving a drug needle in
Speaker 1: the street, I know it sounds like, well, you know, okay,
Speaker 1: how would you feel if you're eight year old, you know,
Speaker 1: was walking down the street and stepped on a used
Speaker 1: hypodermic needle And it's a terrifying thought. But I do
Speaker 1: think it's important to understand how would you feel about
Speaker 1: that people are leaving needles all over the streets in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, all over the streets in Los Angeles. New
Speaker 1: York streets are getting more dirty and unsafe too. And
Speaker 1: there's a reason for this. There are liberal policies that
Speaker 1: have created this situation. Right, we should be getting more
Speaker 1: efficient to the government level. We have better we have
Speaker 1: better technology, better resources. We're pouring all this money into it.
Speaker 1: The problem of homelessness and housing. You know, I think,
Speaker 1: what's the word housing insecurity? As I think what they
Speaker 1: call it. I mean, I've had to move ten times
Speaker 1: in my life as an adult. This is not my
Speaker 1: eleventh time, so I think that in some way I'm
Speaker 1: housing insecure two and I asked to love. This is
Speaker 1: why we had the two roommates. They guess they're Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Nobody own a bit of a witch job can afford
Speaker 1: a two bedroom, two bath condole with water views, probably
Speaker 1: a nice balcony, maybe into a parking Nobody can afford that.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, yeah, I can't afford that now. And
Speaker 1: I don't have a minimum wage job, and I'm almost forty,
Speaker 1: so I don't really know what the what the burn
Speaker 1: is getting at there. But in California, the homelessness crisis
Speaker 1: is a combination of a lot of factors. But what
Speaker 1: I look, they have better weather, which this isn't a
Speaker 1: silly point. This is a real one. That means that
Speaker 1: the nation's homeless are more likely if they can get
Speaker 1: to California. If somebody wants to choose a life on
Speaker 1: the street, much better to do it in Santa Santa
Speaker 1: Monica than try to do it in you know, Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: Theneapolis is a pretty rough place to be trying to
Speaker 1: sleep on the street in January. So the climate does
Speaker 1: play a role. Okay, fine, but it's gotten a lot worse.
Speaker 1: In California has been a warm you know, has been
Speaker 1: a cozy place to set up shop for a long time.
Speaker 1: So it can't just be that. So what else could
Speaker 1: be the situation? Well, if you really want to look
Speaker 1: at a policy level as to why there's greater homelesses,
Speaker 1: it's been Gavin Newsom can whine about TROMP and say
Speaker 1: what happened the Republican Party. Yeah, we're we're for conservation,
Speaker 1: we're for clean water and clean air. CO two doesn't
Speaker 1: make water and air not clean. The CO two thing
Speaker 1: is a delusion that keep trying to fold this in.
Speaker 1: That's a delusion. They're wrong And if they weren't delusional
Speaker 1: about it, then they wouldn't listen to teenagers testifying on
Speaker 1: incredibly complicated issues in front of Congress. It is Congress
Speaker 1: that deserves and Democrats and the status who support them
Speaker 1: the deserve mockery for this. They can try to do
Speaker 1: the whole oh human shield thing. Oh she's a teen.
Speaker 1: I know what they were I know what they were doing.
Speaker 1: I was disappointed that some of my colleagues that I
Speaker 1: on the couch jumped Look, they just jumped the gun.
Speaker 1: They were just they were wrong. They were wrong on
Speaker 1: outnumbered saying no no child bashing, no kid bashing up?
Speaker 1: Wasn't bashing a child? Go back and read the transcript,
Speaker 1: and that they all kind of parroted each other on
Speaker 1: that I thought was I thought that was unfair clearly,
Speaker 1: and it was unfair and incorrect. More importantly, but the
Speaker 1: climate change stuff always gets folded into clean air and
Speaker 1: clean water. When I had that, when I was in DC,
Speaker 1: they sent out some notice not to drink water out
Speaker 1: of the tap. This is true because they were concerned
Speaker 1: that there had been a raw sewage leakage into drinking water.
Speaker 1: So in DC, living a few blocks from the White House,
Speaker 1: I got a note from the DC city government, which
Speaker 1: is even more dysfunctional, I think than the new York
Speaker 1: City government, which is saying something saying, you know, hey, sorry,
Speaker 1: but you may have like a little bit of fecal
Speaker 1: matter in your water untreated, you know, just a little
Speaker 1: raw sewage. So if it's a you know, if you
Speaker 1: have a little bit of that in your water, just
Speaker 1: heads up on that. You know, it should work its
Speaker 1: way out of the system in a few days. Needless
Speaker 1: to say, I became an heavy on and peria man
Speaker 1: for a couple of days, even for brushing my teeth.
Speaker 1: It was like I was back in the Third World
Speaker 1: with the CIA. That's one thing. There's that feeling, man,
Speaker 1: when you're in some place and you're drinking water that
Speaker 1: that isn't there's not really indoor plumbing, but maybe they
Speaker 1: have a kind of a hanging cistern of sorts and
Speaker 1: you can turn a little tap and you forget that
Speaker 1: you can do this to wash your hands. You do
Speaker 1: not want to brush your teeth without water. That stuff
Speaker 1: that you get creepy crawlies in your mouth. Man, it's
Speaker 1: you don't want to know what happens. So anyway, the
Speaker 1: idea that I don't care about clean water is obviously nonsense.
Speaker 1: Because I was freaked out about the poop in the
Speaker 1: water in DC for days, even though I don't know
Speaker 1: how much there was and what could have happened. So
Speaker 1: this is a straw man that liberals create that we
Speaker 1: don't care about the environment. That of course we do.
Speaker 1: Everyone does. Nobody wants rivers to be so polluted that
Speaker 1: you know, you can get sick from going in them,
Speaker 1: and there's all kinds of heavy chemicals and everything else,
Speaker 1: and so we have an EPA. The EPA does things
Speaker 1: to prevent that from happening. But the EPA also has
Speaker 1: a lot of excesses and a lot of idealogues, and
Speaker 1: instead of focusing on the real mission, which should be
Speaker 1: making sure water is clean. I mean, Flint, Michigan's a
Speaker 1: real problem. That was a real problem. Our climate change
Speaker 1: is not. Climate change is an imaginary problem. But instead
Speaker 1: of just agreeing to work with us on what's real,
Speaker 1: they would rather try to mock us and ridicule us
Speaker 1: for not wanting to join them on what's fake, including
Speaker 1: Gavin or Newsom. So they complain about us on the environment,
Speaker 1: and then they also plane when we don't want to
Speaker 1: give them additional federal dollars to bail them out from
Speaker 1: their bad urban policies, and here are some of the
Speaker 1: areas where they are making this problem much worse. Housing
Speaker 1: is very difficult and expensive to build in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: County and in San Francisco because of all the different
Speaker 1: zoning ordinances, all the different regulations, environmental regulations. It's a
Speaker 1: very hard thing. Building housing for middle class people is
Speaker 1: not cost effective in these places. And because it's not
Speaker 1: cost effective, guess what, lib socialists, people don't do it.
Speaker 1: And because developers don't want to build cost effective housing
Speaker 1: where they can make a profit because they're in business,
Speaker 1: in those places, you have housing shortages. What happens with
Speaker 1: a housing shortage, prices go up. This is a problem
Speaker 1: of econ one on one, they can pretend it's not there,
Speaker 1: but the problem is definitely there. And then you also
Speaker 1: have the other side of this, which is just the
Speaker 1: quality of life crimes issue, which I was getting to
Speaker 1: with hypodermic needles and leaving this on the streets. I
Speaker 1: remember what it was like in New York when it
Speaker 1: was a free for all. It was a very bad,
Speaker 1: scary place to be. You did not want to be
Speaker 1: in New York City when things were looking really bad
Speaker 1: back in the day, it was rough. It was rough.
Speaker 1: If you called someone because you had a homeless person
Speaker 1: who was living in your stairwell of your building, good
Speaker 1: luck trying to get them to come and take the
Speaker 1: person out, and trespassing, and people would be urinating and
Speaker 1: leaving their drugs there and doing all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: Nat was just life in the big city for a while.
Speaker 1: And then eventually Giuliani, thank you, Mayor Juliani came along.
Speaker 1: I was like, you know what, We're just no more
Speaker 1: of this. People work hard, people of all backgrounds, all ethnicities,
Speaker 1: all religions or work at hard in this city doing
Speaker 1: the best they can. They deserve to feel like when
Speaker 1: they come home they don't have somebody taking a you know,
Speaker 1: a urination break on the front on their front steps,
Speaker 1: and they shouldn't have to worry about their kids stepping
Speaker 1: on needles walking home from school, and we're going to
Speaker 1: clean it up. Libs don't like to do that stuff because,
Speaker 1: you know why. It involves making arrests for things. It
Speaker 1: involves arresting people. It involves putting people into the system
Speaker 1: and punishing them, not just saying, oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: give you a lot of free stuff, so you know,
Speaker 1: there's certain things you can't do even if you're really
Speaker 1: down on your luck. Quality of life crimes liberals do
Speaker 1: not want to enforce, and housing policy liberals are a
Speaker 1: complete mess on and they just want to shovel more
Speaker 1: federal dollars at this so that the very same Democrats
Speaker 1: in California who have been doing this stuff to get elected,
Speaker 1: they're going to continue to get elected because they're going
Speaker 1: to shovel the federal dollars to the people of California
Speaker 1: that you know, and they're gonna tell them, oh, look
Speaker 1: at all this money I brought in, And even if
Speaker 1: they don't deal with the problem, they're gonna say, but
Speaker 1: look at all the money I got for us, all
Speaker 1: the pork that I brought home. That's all this really is.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's that's what I see going on
Speaker 1: with California. Darn it. You sent to tweet recently blaming
Speaker 1: Fox News for some of the uh for distorting some
Speaker 1: of the errors in the reporting. Why are you blaming
Speaker 1: Fox News for this failure? I actually didn't blame Joe.
Speaker 1: I just retweeted the Vox article which I thought, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of finally added sort of a little bit of
Speaker 1: balance to this, which is that I just have to
Speaker 1: jump in real quick. Okay, I hate this thing when reporters,
Speaker 1: you know, here's an you know, Jake Tapper is the
Speaker 1: guy who does mister mister neutral Tapper. You go in
Speaker 1: his timeline, He'll retweet things that clearly show he's a
Speaker 1: liberal all the time. But he's just retweeting them. Man,
Speaker 1: He's just retweeting. He's not really, you know, making making
Speaker 1: a statement one or the other. Just I'm just retweeting stuff.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of right wing stuff being retweeted from
Speaker 1: these CNN anchor types and the New York Times the
Speaker 1: same Thinger. Oh, I didn't blame them. I just retweeted.
Speaker 1: I just shared all of my followers the vox piece,
Speaker 1: which I really do think that you know, voxes is
Speaker 1: beta male central um, the vox piece that was blaming
Speaker 1: Fox News for this whole debacle, which any any honest
Speaker 1: observer sees this and says, Okay, this is the New
Speaker 1: York Times just stepping on Rake, after stepping on Rake,
Speaker 1: just come boying hit it right in the face over
Speaker 1: and over again. But my man Sager and Jetty, he
Speaker 1: took over my chair at the Hill Sager's a great
Speaker 1: guys from the Daily Caller. He's got big things ahead.
Speaker 1: He did a really solid job today in this interview.
Speaker 1: Continue please basically set out to do a book that
Speaker 1: revisits these events in kind of a calm way, with
Speaker 1: the benefit of ten months of investigation. We've written a
Speaker 1: book that's almost three hundred pages. We spent ten months
Speaker 1: doing it. It's you know, these paragraphs that have been
Speaker 1: pulled out and seized upon or two paragraphs in that book,
Speaker 1: so we haven't highlighted them. They're not the focus of this.
Speaker 1: But your paper did that our Payton, No, on our paper,
Speaker 1: we did this Debor Ramirez excerpt in which that was
Speaker 1: also one paragraph, and unfortunately that line was removed and
Speaker 1: it was put back and corrected. Oh yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was unfortunate that it was removed. It wasn't removed
Speaker 1: because it undercut the entire thrust of the piece. People
Speaker 1: have been making jokes that this New York Times book
Speaker 1: is the result of a couple of reporters who took
Speaker 1: on a project with for a book and didn't want
Speaker 1: to give the book advance back, which I think is true.
Speaker 1: I think at some level, you know, they were so
Speaker 1: ideologically driven to try to find the counter narrative to
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh that what they didn't do, what they didn't focus
Speaker 1: in on, was wait a second, what if Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: totally innocent and all the facts that we find are
Speaker 1: really just going to prove that, no matter how hard
Speaker 1: we try to find alternative facts. And now they're in
Speaker 1: a place where because they've published this book and because
Speaker 1: they put their names on it, and they've already been
Speaker 1: out there in the public eye on this, then you know,
Speaker 1: you look at this and you got to say to yourself, Okay,
Speaker 1: I guess they're going to take the heat on this
Speaker 1: and keep trying to defend it in public because they
Speaker 1: got to earn out the book advance. I really mean that.
Speaker 1: I think that there's some degree of just old fashioned
Speaker 1: we gotta we gotta make enough sales here, and if
Speaker 1: that means we have to make fools of ourselves, we're
Speaker 1: willing to do it. But they're there. They haven't been
Speaker 1: willing to say anything other than it was just errors.
Speaker 1: They haven't owned up the fact that it's completely and
Speaker 1: totally ideology driven. It is ideology driven. And then you
Speaker 1: get to another and this really annoyed me today, and
Speaker 1: there are a few things I've been a bit annoyed
Speaker 1: today in general, but rightfully so libs. Libs are getting
Speaker 1: a little rowy today, a little bit, a little bit,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark a little bit, and libs are getting rowdy
Speaker 1: with me, and I don't like it, and also saying
Speaker 1: things that are untrue and that should annoy any any
Speaker 1: anyone who's paying attention. And one of them is that
Speaker 1: these these New York Times reporters are out there saying
Speaker 1: that I want to make sure I find exactly what
Speaker 1: it was, but they're saying more or less that Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: asked them, yeah, asked them to lie. This is the
Speaker 1: huff Post headline. New York Times reporters say Kavanaugh asked them,
Speaker 1: It says, asked them lie so good job, huff Post,
Speaker 1: Huff Post English, not so good, asked them lie in
Speaker 1: exchange for an interview, asked them to lie. So this
Speaker 1: is just a desperation move because it is almost certain
Speaker 1: you would have to assume that what they're talking about
Speaker 1: here is that Kavanaugh said I will speak to you
Speaker 1: off the record. There is no way that Kavanaugh, who
Speaker 1: is brilliant, who is far smarter than these two women.
Speaker 1: There is absolutely no way that they asked him for
Speaker 1: an interview, and he said, only if you lie to
Speaker 1: everybody about us having an interview. The real way to
Speaker 1: do it, I mean, or rather, the way that this
Speaker 1: would have been asked is could we do an interview?
Speaker 1: He said, I'll speak to you off the record, which
Speaker 1: means you can get information from me, but you cannot
Speaker 1: use it or cite it or tell anybody that we spoke.
Speaker 1: That's what off the record means. You have to wonder
Speaker 1: if the New York Times just does not know that
Speaker 1: the answer is. Of course, they can't fail to know
Speaker 1: what off the record means. That's not that's not possible.
Speaker 1: They clearly know. But this was too enticing of an
Speaker 1: opportunity for them. This was too exciting a chance for
Speaker 1: them to find a way to bash Cavanaugh and to
Speaker 1: say that, oh, he would have insisted that we lie
Speaker 1: if we had this interview, just because I mean, there's
Speaker 1: just no way. No one should believe them. No one
Speaker 1: should believe them because they've already been telling lies all week.
Speaker 1: But notice how they keep trying to seize on something
Speaker 1: else to turn the onus, to switch this around and
Speaker 1: make Kavanaugh out to be the bad guy. It's just
Speaker 1: not it's just not gonna happen. It's not gonna work.
Speaker 1: By the way, Mary Ann Williamson, what happened? Maryanne Williamson.
Speaker 1: You know this is a departure, but you know, we
Speaker 1: had we had a moment backstage at the bill Marshaw
Speaker 1: Mary Anne and I. She was like, Buck, you're wrong
Speaker 1: about everything. I know. I just don't think your policies
Speaker 1: are anny good. But Darling, Honey, if you can unleash
Speaker 1: that spirit, if you can reach for the stars, who
Speaker 1: knows how far your spirit can go. And I said, uh, okay, Mariann,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get it. I'm gonna get a tequila soda. Now.
Speaker 1: It's been real. But you know, she's out there still
Speaker 1: being treated like somebody who understands policy issues. That the
Speaker 1: one thing I liked about her was that she seemed
Speaker 1: like she wasn't hateful and mean. But beyond that, there's
Speaker 1: still a lot of stuff about mary and Williamson that,
Speaker 1: oh honest, people can look at and say, yes, she
Speaker 1: doesn't really know what she's talking about. And one of
Speaker 1: those areas I would assume is nuclear energy. What are
Speaker 1: your issues with nuclear energy? Well, I know Germany had
Speaker 1: said at one point we're just going no nuclear. But
Speaker 1: then when they said no nuclear, there was a problem
Speaker 1: because they had a hard time keeping up at the
Speaker 1: other standards that they agree to. What is wrong with that?
Speaker 1: If something goes wrong with nuclear energy? I don't think
Speaker 1: people have really stopped to take in the harm. See,
Speaker 1: we need an integrated politics. We need to go beyond
Speaker 1: hard data. We need to go beyond just thinking about
Speaker 1: the facts. So I want you to think about this
Speaker 1: with your heart. Something goes wrong there? What have we
Speaker 1: been talking about? How can we even consider us I'm
Speaker 1: with you, Mary Edge, So maybe we'd all be a
Speaker 1: little warmer, a little cool I mean, Americans, we have
Speaker 1: to decide what is That's the problem I have with
Speaker 1: NCLAR What are we talking about? Are we a little warmer,
Speaker 1: a little cooler, not too hot, not too cold, just right?
Speaker 1: What are we even talking about? That's a perfect question,
Speaker 1: Mary ed What are we even talking about? Stupid question? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a stupid question, that's for sure. Let's talk about Iran.
Speaker 1: What's going on there? Team, We'll be right back. You
Speaker 1: are now answering the Freedom Hot Capital Operation Center, all
Speaker 1: sense of programs muski Cats strictly need to know Team
Speaker 1: Buck is cleared and ready for the Buck brief. I
Speaker 1: think it's abundantly clear, and there is an enormous consensus
Speaker 1: in the region that we know precisely who conducted these
Speaker 1: attacks was Iran. I didn't hear I didn't hear anybody
Speaker 1: in the region who doubted that for a single month,
Speaker 1: the Iran folks. Unless you want to take the position
Speaker 1: that you can't trust anybody in our intelligence community anymore.
Speaker 1: You can't trust the United States government, you can't trust
Speaker 1: the Saudi government, which that wouldn't be hard to do
Speaker 1: at some point unless you have access to yourself, to
Speaker 1: the remains, the wreckage of the drones and the missiles
Speaker 1: used to attack that Saudi oil infrastructure. I guess you
Speaker 1: could always say, well, I'll never really know. You know,
Speaker 1: we'll never really know. You have to rely on others
Speaker 1: who are presenting you with information and facts and even
Speaker 1: the evidence. They could show you, the photographs of the site,
Speaker 1: the complexity of the of the attack. You know, the
Speaker 1: Hoothies in the past have fired off rockets from Yemen
Speaker 1: into Saudi Arabia and it's blown up on an airport tarmac.
Speaker 1: Or something, but it didn't hit anyone or anything. Generally,
Speaker 1: it just was a miss. And the Iranians have a
Speaker 1: much greater sophistication clearly than the Hoothi rebels do. Now
Speaker 1: Iranians are also arming the Hoothies and assisting them training them.
Speaker 1: So is it conceivable that the Iranians gave the Hoothies
Speaker 1: the training and the equipment. Sure, But then you also have,
Speaker 1: as we've been discussing, where did this attack come from?
Speaker 1: Where did it originate from? If it came from Iranian soil,
Speaker 1: then we clearly know it's Iran. There's some that have
Speaker 1: been saying it might have come from Iraq, which would
Speaker 1: be interesting because there you'd have Iranian proxies operating on
Speaker 1: Iraqi soil, to give an extra layer of disbelief, for
Speaker 1: an extra layer, a fig leaf of protection really for
Speaker 1: the Iranians for what they what they've done here. But
Speaker 1: I'm happy to see so far the President has not
Speaker 1: reacted with a military strike. As you know, I am
Speaker 1: opposed to US engaging in a major military strike on Iran.
Speaker 1: And here we have Secretary of State POMPEII, who I
Speaker 1: still think is one of the most squared away best
Speaker 1: voices in this administration on foreign policy issues. He's saying, Look,
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be more sanctions. We're not going
Speaker 1: to do nothing here. But let's let's remember this, folks.
Speaker 1: It wasn't an attack on us. And if Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: is in the OH, if they get attacked, well we'll
Speaker 1: fight in their place, or we'll take action on their behalf.
Speaker 1: You know, Saudi Arabia is not in NATO. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm in Saudi Arabia. We're not supposed to do their
Speaker 1: fighting for them. There will be more sanctions. We have
Speaker 1: set about a course of action to deny around the
Speaker 1: capacity and the wealth so that they can conduct their terror,
Speaker 1: to prevent it from conducting their terror campaigns. And you
Speaker 1: can see from the events of US week there's still
Speaker 1: more work to do, and we're going to continue to
Speaker 1: drive towards that end. I think that's the right move. Um,
Speaker 1: we're trying to make sure that the Iranians are economically
Speaker 1: starved as much as possible. The Iranian regime, I should say,
Speaker 1: the IRGC, the elements of the Iranian government that support terrorism.
Speaker 1: And then you also have Secretary of State Mike Pompey,
Speaker 1: who was just talking more about how diplomacy here could
Speaker 1: get it done as long as we make the right moves.
Speaker 1: I was here in active diplomacy while the foreign Minister
Speaker 1: of Iran is threatening all out ward to fight to
Speaker 1: the last American. We're here to build out a coalition
Speaker 1: aimed at achieving peace and a peaceful resolution to us.
Speaker 1: That's my mission set. It's where President Trump certainly wants
Speaker 1: me to work to achieve, and I hope that the
Speaker 1: Islamica Republic of Iran sees it the same way. I
Speaker 1: don't think this should be that complicated. If the Iranians,
Speaker 1: if they did to us in some way, I mean,
Speaker 1: if they blew up a US ship and killed Americans.
Speaker 1: Remember they've already had they went after an unmanned drone.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've been doing some things that are provocations.
Speaker 1: But we're also blocking countless billions of dollars of economic
Speaker 1: activity to them, which I think is the right move.
Speaker 1: But we're not failing to do anything here. That would
Speaker 1: not be an accurate statement, and I think that what
Speaker 1: we are seeing is that the Iranian government, the Iranian
Speaker 1: regime's feeling the heat. The most important thing for us
Speaker 1: here is just we don't want another war. We just
Speaker 1: do not want a war in the Middle East based
Speaker 1: on all of the factors that we talk about here
Speaker 1: on the show at a regular basis. We've done this
Speaker 1: too many times in the past. We have not gotten
Speaker 1: the outcomes that we have wanted in the wars that
Speaker 1: we have waged in the Middle East. It has been
Speaker 1: very expensive. We have lost American lives and sometimes lost
Speaker 1: American lives in circumstances where it would be difficult to
Speaker 1: explain what the real strategic objective was for putting our
Speaker 1: soldiers in harm's way. And so I I do believe
Speaker 1: that there's a shift right now in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: that we're still getting used to, which is we are
Speaker 1: not going to do the rest of the world's fighting
Speaker 1: for it, even if we think that there's a strategic interests. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we have. We have. We have an interest in keeping
Speaker 1: keeping oil flowing in the Middle EASi just because we
Speaker 1: want global gas prices to remain stable. But this is
Speaker 1: not enough in and of itself for us to engage
Speaker 1: in a major military exchange with Iran. I am very
Speaker 1: confident that if we blew up a bunch of and
Speaker 1: I can't say that I know. But let's just say
Speaker 1: that we sent over a carrier group and just laid
Speaker 1: waste to a lot of Iranian oil infrastructure and really
Speaker 1: punished them, kept casualties low, but really punished critical Iranian
Speaker 1: oil infrastructure. They would not then say okay, we're even.
Speaker 1: They would do something else. They do something a little
Speaker 1: bit more of a provocation. And I do have some here.
Speaker 1: Here's a theory that I cannot tell you is vetted
Speaker 1: in any way. But perhaps the situation inside Iran right
Speaker 1: now because of the economic pressure, because of the three
Speaker 1: percent drop in their economy last year looks like a
Speaker 1: six percent drop in the economy. Remember, if we just
Speaker 1: have a couple of quarters of negative growth, we consider
Speaker 1: it to be a recession. They're in a recession. And
Speaker 1: then some perhaps the Iranian Guardian Council, which is the
Speaker 1: true power inside inside Tehran in that Islamist government apparatus,
Speaker 1: maybe they're under more pressure than we realize and facing
Speaker 1: an external enemy US Saudi Israel just because it's Israel,
Speaker 1: whoever it may be, is a way of maintaining some
Speaker 1: stability internally, and perhaps they're even willing to take major
Speaker 1: risks as a result of that you know, remember the
Speaker 1: Iranians fought and I think very few people recall this,
Speaker 1: but there was an Iran Iraq war back in the
Speaker 1: eighties and it lasts did for almost the entirety of
Speaker 1: the eighties, and there were there were huge numbers of casualties.
Speaker 1: It was the longest war. I mean, if you go
Speaker 1: back and you look at longest declared war of the
Speaker 1: twentieth century, the Iran Iraq War of the eighties was
Speaker 1: the longest declared war. And the casualties are are believed
Speaker 1: to be somewhere in the range. I mean, certainly hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands, perhaps above a million. Total casualties are about
Speaker 1: are roughly a million if you want to look at
Speaker 1: most of the estimates. I mean, that was a big, nasty,
Speaker 1: vicious war between these two countries, and we were selling
Speaker 1: a lot of arms to Iraq. By the way, during it,
Speaker 1: there was a proxy component there because of the Cold
Speaker 1: War and the relationship that we had with Iraq and
Speaker 1: the relationship that the Iranians had with the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: which now of course is a relationship that the Russian
Speaker 1: Federation as in that country with that country. So the
Speaker 1: Iranians are no stranger to long, protract and protracted fights.
Speaker 1: And if you're part of the molocracy, and if you're
Speaker 1: part of the security apparatus, they're the irgc um the besiege,
Speaker 1: you're the the paramilitaries. They're really the the Iranian equivalent
Speaker 1: of the of the brown Shirts. You know, they'll go
Speaker 1: around and beat people up and and they're they're the
Speaker 1: the official thugs of the thugocracy in Iran. If they
Speaker 1: have to fight some kind of war, at least that
Speaker 1: means in their minds that they get to maintain power.
Speaker 1: And we're not going to want to take the country over.
Speaker 1: So you know, there's some complicated, complicated calculations that are
Speaker 1: going on across the table from us with the Iranians.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind they also could be making miscalculations.
Speaker 1: They also could be very very wrong here. And that's
Speaker 1: something else that I think we have to keep in mind. So, um,
Speaker 1: we have more coming up. Team stay with me. So, guys,
Speaker 1: I have some updates from my efforts to uh find
Speaker 1: the source of what is what is officially an illegal
Speaker 1: noise an illegal noise um in my apartment coming from
Speaker 1: some nearby building. I have been able to get the
Speaker 1: Department of Environmental Protection for the City of New York,
Speaker 1: which is not the federal EPA. It's the local version
Speaker 1: of the EPA d ep to come and and all
Speaker 1: I need, all I need to get justice is a
Speaker 1: piece of paper that should be freely available to me
Speaker 1: that says exactly what was done in my apartment. Buy
Speaker 1: a city employee as part of their job, right a
Speaker 1: report that I know exists. You know what I found
Speaker 1: out today? Uh? Well it was actually great because they're
Speaker 1: very technologically savvy now, so they just send you these
Speaker 1: email notifications. I got an email notification today, Producer Mark.
Speaker 1: How long for the Freedom of Information Act request from
Speaker 1: the City of New York to get my maybe five
Speaker 1: line DP report? How long do you think this is
Speaker 1: going to take? At least six months? That's right, my friend.
Speaker 1: February fourth is their estimated date, February fourth, Like, sitting here,
Speaker 1: how is this possible? How can how can it be helpful?
Speaker 1: What if I had like a toxic waste dump in
Speaker 1: my apartment or if they take readings on that, they
Speaker 1: I'd wait six months to find out if my legs
Speaker 1: are going to fall off from all the radioactivity? Well
Speaker 1: that would be an emergency. How do you be quiet?
Speaker 1: You know what I'm saying. This is ridiculous, But even
Speaker 1: more ridiculous, the great part about this is that the
Speaker 1: same day that I receive an email from the City
Speaker 1: of New York telling me that I am that I
Speaker 1: am going to find out about this February second, I
Speaker 1: also receive an email maybe two hours later that says
Speaker 1: your request has been posted online. And then the request
Speaker 1: posted online is followed up by an email, you know,
Speaker 1: saying that your documents are posted. I go and then
Speaker 1: and then I click and the link is dead. And
Speaker 1: then I'm like, I can't see There's no way to
Speaker 1: see anything here. And then risteven email is saying your
Speaker 1: foyer request falls under a part of like the City's
Speaker 1: something something code, where we cannot share the information with you.
Speaker 1: So it seems that in one day, the City of
Speaker 1: New York has told me that for a simple piece
Speaker 1: of paper to tell me about a noise reading in
Speaker 1: my own apartment that I need in order to get
Speaker 1: some relief from the situation, I have been told that
Speaker 1: to wait until February. I have been told that my
Speaker 1: request has already been adhered to just click here. And
Speaker 1: then I have been told that Oh no, just kidding.
Speaker 1: We're never going to tell you this stuff. We're never
Speaker 1: going to give you the report. Welcome to city governance,
Speaker 1: my friends. That's what we're dealing with these days. It's
Speaker 1: crazy world we live in. Friends. I'll be right back,
Speaker 1: Team Buck. It's time for roll call. Roll call everybody,
Speaker 1: it is time for it. Let's see what we have
Speaker 1: here now. First and foremost, we have Team Buck at
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. Is the email address with that, We'll
Speaker 1: get to it. We have Benny, not the Jets, just Benny,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck. How many more slanted, biased, non attributable, fake,
Speaker 1: misleading news articles will it take before conservatives on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill begin using Alinsky's tactic of ridicules, Man's most potent weapon.
Speaker 1: If a conservative is asked to comment on a story
Speaker 1: from the New York Times, they respond every time they
Speaker 1: didn't read it, nor do they comment on anything with
Speaker 1: a particular fraudulent source, then maybe the American people begin
Speaker 1: to see the New York Times as the joke. It
Speaker 1: is shield time, Benny in Mississippi. Benny, I would like
Speaker 1: to say that this plan of yours will work, but
Speaker 1: I think unfortunately that is unlikely. New York Times still
Speaker 1: has a lot of resources, has thousands of employees. I
Speaker 1: find it very unlikely that if we're going to be
Speaker 1: able to get The New York Times to shut its
Speaker 1: stores anytime soon. Look, and this, let's keep this in mind.
Speaker 1: I don't actually want I'm not a canceled culture person.
Speaker 1: I don't want news outlets to go out of business necessarily.
Speaker 1: Some of them should, like Gawker, that was good for
Speaker 1: the world, But I'm in general, I just want there
Speaker 1: to be honesty. What they do, I mean, what they
Speaker 1: do is dishonest. At The New York Times. They pretend
Speaker 1: that they're an objective media outlet, and they most certainly
Speaker 1: are not. And does anyone really think otherwise at this point?
Speaker 1: And that's what I love to ask that question. Does
Speaker 1: somebody want to have the debate about whether The New
Speaker 1: York Times is a liberal newspaper or not? You'll say
Speaker 1: it and people say, no, no no, it's not, and they
Speaker 1: kind of want to mutter this under their breath, and
Speaker 1: then I want to say, well, okay, well then what
Speaker 1: is it exactly? Someone explained this to me. Karen writes
Speaker 1: she can't remember when or where or when that party was,
Speaker 1: but she claims Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. She remembers she
Speaker 1: only had one beer. When my alcoholic clients say one beer,
Speaker 1: they usually meet a forty ounce bottle. Karen and Karen,
Speaker 1: it wasn't. It wasn't really a credible accusation. And the
Speaker 1: more we've thought about it, the more distance we've had
Speaker 1: from it, the more absurd. The whole situation was. I
Speaker 1: leave that, I leave that where it is. I just
Speaker 1: I didn't believe her then, I don't believe her now.
Speaker 1: I think that her motivations to lie were very clear.
Speaker 1: One of the things that kept coming up was that
Speaker 1: you had the left pretending like, why would she lie?
Speaker 1: She has nothing to gain by lying. Lie for reasons
Speaker 1: of ideology, lies for reasons of fame, money, prestige, all
Speaker 1: things that the people that she cares about, who are
Speaker 1: clearly leftists, will now ensure her for the rest of
Speaker 1: her life, and she'll be treated as a hero. They
Speaker 1: will have the most appealing popular Hollywood actress in about
Speaker 1: ten or fifteen years, playing the brave, the fearless Christine
Speaker 1: blasi Ford in the HBO movie In the Netflix series
Speaker 1: whatever it may be, I assure you, just give it time.
Speaker 1: Oh and the New York Times reporters that Molly Hemingway
Speaker 1: and Carrie Severino have just been wiping the floors with
Speaker 1: over the last few days by pointing out all their
Speaker 1: all their ridiculous errors and flaws. They'll be treated as
Speaker 1: the one who really broke the true story. You know,
Speaker 1: they're they're the real journalists who got to the heart
Speaker 1: of this, not a bunch of hack lib clowns, which
Speaker 1: is in fact what they are. So yes, indeed, next
Speaker 1: up we have oh you know what, actually we will
Speaker 1: get to I wanted to get into some of these
Speaker 1: there's some good stuff today in the Fate on the
Speaker 1: Facebook side of things, So let's let's get to that.
Speaker 1: Member at Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton, we now
Speaker 1: do roll call in both places we have we have
Speaker 1: roll call multiple avenues for the role call, so please
Speaker 1: do check us out there on Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. By the time you hear this, by the way, um,
Speaker 1: I will already be underwear my speech at the Women's
Speaker 1: Natural Republican Club courtesy of the Young Republicans of New
Speaker 1: York City, and I will try to get full video
Speaker 1: of that speech and post it on fate. Posted on
Speaker 1: Buck sex dot com. We have a website, yes, right,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, we do. It's pretty too. It's very very nice,
Speaker 1: very nice website. So we're going to start putting more
Speaker 1: things on that, and we will indeed including hopefully the speech,
Speaker 1: assuming I can get the full audio video of it.
Speaker 1: Benny rights Buck, I take grief every time I fry
Speaker 1: bacon due to the mess, time and smell, and then
Speaker 1: bombarded with cute Hillary voice. Why don't you just bake
Speaker 1: it in the oven? Much like my eggs. I cook
Speaker 1: my thick cut pepper bacon low and slow and turn
Speaker 1: off in. Please back me up that no true bacon
Speaker 1: connoisseur would ever deign to bake bacon shields high. Another Benny,
Speaker 1: but a different Benny. Yeah, man. Look first, a couple
Speaker 1: of things about the bacon. You cook bacon in a pan, people,
Speaker 1: let's say, oh, but it doesn't make a mess if
Speaker 1: you cook it in the oven. To that, I always
Speaker 1: want to point out you have to use an entire
Speaker 1: like an entire roll of saran wrap or silver foil
Speaker 1: or what ever it is. So that's not true. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just a there's a mess. You have to throw
Speaker 1: all this stuff out, all you need with you're gonna
Speaker 1: cook bacon in a pan as somebody who cooks a
Speaker 1: lot of bacon, is some grease catch cup where you
Speaker 1: keep all the grease because if you dump it all
Speaker 1: in the trash, it'll actually sometimes burn a hole in
Speaker 1: your trash and it'll smell like your whole apartment will
Speaker 1: smell like bacon. I don't know, John, do we like that?
Speaker 1: Is that good bacon scent? Yeah? They're probably. I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are bacon scented candles. I don't know that it
Speaker 1: definitely are there definitely are. Yeah, So I'm essentially doing
Speaker 1: a bacon scented candle the old fashioned way. But you
Speaker 1: want thick cut too. You know. I was in a
Speaker 1: rush the other day and I was in the store
Speaker 1: and I bought normal person bacon, you know, like Oscar
Speaker 1: Myer or whatever, and it was just and I cooked
Speaker 1: this stuff and it's like it's just all grease. There's
Speaker 1: nothing there. There's no actual bacon, damn it. You want
Speaker 1: thick cut, and you want to go to a butcher
Speaker 1: usually and have them cut it for you. If you can,
Speaker 1: you can do in your grocery store, but have them
Speaker 1: slice it and say I want it to be thick,
Speaker 1: you'll taste more of the pork flavor, and it won't
Speaker 1: be such a greasy mess. As you can see. I
Speaker 1: get into my bacon, my man t to the j
Speaker 1: asks Buck, How have you not made it on Shapiro
Speaker 1: Sunday Special yet? I can't believe Kennedy beat you to it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. T J asked Ben.
Speaker 1: I'd be happy to go on anytime, Adam Buck on
Speaker 1: Eddie Murphy, how can you not include the Golden Child
Speaker 1: Shield's Eye? I don't think so. Man, I'm throwing a flag.
Speaker 1: Have you guys seen the Golden Child? I don't think
Speaker 1: the Golden Child is now. I can't. I can't get
Speaker 1: behind that as a good movie. I feel like I
Speaker 1: saw it once a long long time ago and didn't
Speaker 1: think it was very good. So do you agree with me?
Speaker 1: By the producer mark, the best Eddie Murphy movies are?
Speaker 1: You do not have to put them in order, but
Speaker 1: the Top three or Beverly Hills, Cop Trading Places and
Speaker 1: Coming to America? Yeah? Absolutely, yeah, I mean I think
Speaker 1: this isn't that. I really like Doctor Doolittle also, but
Speaker 1: really younger than you. I've never seen that one really. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've never seen that really, but it's funny. Pluto Nash
Speaker 1: was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time,
Speaker 1: which is always a fun thing to look and see.
Speaker 1: How much money can be wasted in Hollywood on a
Speaker 1: bad project. The answer is a lot. Anthony writes Buck,
Speaker 1: you're an important voice for the modern day neo conservative movement.
Speaker 1: I would call it in response to you're taking calls
Speaker 1: the other day. I agree, less is more meaning. I
Speaker 1: think there's important voices that need to get through to
Speaker 1: you in your audience. And I have a suggestion. Make
Speaker 1: it a bit of a competition, perhaps one day a
Speaker 1: week or an everyday challenge. Offer up to the audience
Speaker 1: one caller who will win the opportunity to present the
Speaker 1: world the kinds of questions you'll love to respond to
Speaker 1: or answer. Sorry, Producer John, this will be busy, challenging
Speaker 1: work for you. But what better way? That way? You mean,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, But Producer John helps out too. This would
Speaker 1: be busy challenging work. That's very important part of this
Speaker 1: challenge perhaps the beginning of roll call. Put it out there,
Speaker 1: Rucer Mark, do you want to take this on as
Speaker 1: a project? I think roll Call works perfectly the way
Speaker 1: it is. I think that's the right answer. I'm with
Speaker 1: you on that for now, especially because we're we're trying
Speaker 1: to move to a new studio which is gonna have
Speaker 1: all this video capability and all this other stuff. It'll
Speaker 1: happen by twenty twenty one. No, man, I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna put I'm gonna put my foot down. We're moving
Speaker 1: faster than the City of New York. I'm a noise complaint,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. I look, I really think I got
Speaker 1: a few ideas with the City New York. One is,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe Buck for may or really does need to happen.
Speaker 1: The only problem is that I'd have to I don't
Speaker 1: know if I could still do a radio show if
Speaker 1: I was running for may or? Could I? There is
Speaker 1: there a law against that? Didn't Bloomberg used to do
Speaker 1: a spout once a week. Yeah, But I don't know
Speaker 1: if you can host a show if you run for
Speaker 1: you know, I think there's is an equal time thing?
Speaker 1: Or John, Am I right about that? Could I run
Speaker 1: for office while hosting a radio show? Maybe not hosting,
Speaker 1: but bloom Bloomberg used to co host with John Gambley
Speaker 1: and got wr huh on Fridays, I believe, and uh,
Speaker 1: the Blasio's on w NYC once a week. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: that's as a guess. That's that's of course, politicians can
Speaker 1: be guests. I just think that there's I don't know
Speaker 1: why I think this, but I believe there's some regulation
Speaker 1: that will prevent me from because otherwise, right, wouldn't the
Speaker 1: thing if you're a politician you want to have your
Speaker 1: own media. Well, when I worked in Westchester, a lot
Speaker 1: of the mayors from the different towns had radio shows
Speaker 1: and they were in office at the time. Really yeah,
Speaker 1: so I don't know if that was legal or not,
Speaker 1: but it has I don't like it. I mean, buck
Speaker 1: for mayor. Think about all the noise we'd make. It'd
Speaker 1: be so fantastic. I'm from here. I drive the Libs
Speaker 1: in saying I'm gonna be way more interesting than whatever
Speaker 1: whoever their candidate is. It's not I understand. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be the Blasio again. It's gonna be somebody else.
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure who, but I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about that. Guys, are you ready for that? Prucer Mark,
Speaker 1: You're ready to be campaign manager. Absolutely, Brucer John, You're
Speaker 1: gonna be the muscle. You know, anyone any like any
Speaker 1: like union guys show up, like any any union guys
Speaker 1: show up, be like, excuse me you you talked to
Speaker 1: producer John over here. They're like hey. They'll be like
Speaker 1: hey John, good to see you again, buddy. Uh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: let's go back here to the the role called Monica Rides.
Speaker 1: Brisket is the barbecue for the guy. Odds you are correct, sir,
Speaker 1: It is number one. It is the ribbi of barbecue.
Speaker 1: Now this is true. However, let's all be very clear
Speaker 1: that brisket, while it is, I think when best executed,
Speaker 1: the best of the barbecue meets. Although you guys gave
Speaker 1: me legitimate answers. I will take ribs, I will take
Speaker 1: pulled pork. It's just as long as you don't say
Speaker 1: chicken or people that would say like cheddar, sausage and
Speaker 1: things like this. I'm like, that's what you keep in
Speaker 1: your freezer for when you come home drunk and you
Speaker 1: don't want to be hung over the next morning. You
Speaker 1: don't go to get that at a That's like a
Speaker 1: side dish, that's not a main The sausage they have
Speaker 1: with those places. I know it's like a thousand calories
Speaker 1: a link, but who cares. But the problem with brisket
Speaker 1: is that it can be either it has to be
Speaker 1: in that sweet spot. It can be too fatty, too
Speaker 1: moist and fatty, or it can be dry. You gotta
Speaker 1: get it right in the sweet spot or else you're
Speaker 1: you're gonna be in bad shape. Um, but I agree
Speaker 1: with you on and Ribbi is obviously the move. Look,
Speaker 1: I would take a good, a good, solid, all American
Speaker 1: Ribbi over and I've had Kobe beef one time before
Speaker 1: real from Japan Kobe beef. I'd take a good an
Speaker 1: Rebi over Kobe beef. Anytime you eat Kobe beef and
Speaker 1: you think your gall bladder might just spontaneously combust, it's
Speaker 1: just so rich, and you know, it's like you're drinking
Speaker 1: baking greases, you're eating a steak. Some of you are like, yes,
Speaker 1: sign me up for the Kobe beef. Maybe maybe Jennifer,
Speaker 1: All right, Hey, Buck, finishing up the podcast Wednesday. Now
Speaker 1: you're set up in New York and expanding the show
Speaker 1: a couple moos. We're talking about how you need to
Speaker 1: do and instill live while cooking allah AOC, just don't
Speaker 1: be moronic like her. We love the idea of cooking
Speaker 1: with conservatives. First show request how to sear the perfect
Speaker 1: rebi and a discussion of the solvency of social security. Also,
Speaker 1: the correct answer for best BBQ is indeed brisket. All right,
Speaker 1: there we go, Steven Buck. Thinking about your gun control woes,
Speaker 1: you should have Ken Blanchard on from The Black Man
Speaker 1: with a Gun Podcast. Never heard this before. I think
Speaker 1: you'd be surprised to see the to be the roots
Speaker 1: of gun control are actually very racist. I've heard about
Speaker 1: this a little bit in the past, my friends. I
Speaker 1: think I know what you are alluding to. Anyway, we
Speaker 1: don't have much time here now, We've got one one
Speaker 1: more here, one more Kelly, right, Bunk. You'll love this
Speaker 1: French bulldog and its attitude toward dieting. I know you
Speaker 1: love them. And it's a YouTube video. Angry French bulldog
Speaker 1: on diet throws tantrum. It sounds like me an angry
Speaker 1: French bulldog on a diet, although I'm not on a
Speaker 1: diet yet, so I need to make that happen. All right,
Speaker 1: everybody countdown to downtown is coming up here. We'll be downtown.
Speaker 1: It looks like the show will actually be available for
Speaker 1: your on podcast third a week from today, right, producer Mark,
Speaker 1: that's when it will actually happen. Think so, We think so.
Speaker 1: We're trying as fast as we can here. Yeah, what'd
Speaker 1: you say. It's out of our hands. It's out of
Speaker 1: our hands. We're doing the best we can. But it
Speaker 1: will happen soon. So subscribe on iTunes or the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app to The Buck Sexton Show. Doctor Merl Shields High