Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hudge. Attorney General Barr nails
Speaker 1: the crazy left Trump to testify over impeachment. FedEx gets
Speaker 1: called out by The New York Times, but FedEx claps back.
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew does a disastrous interview, Blasi Ford gets an
Speaker 1: ACLU award, and Charlie's Angels flops. We got that and
Speaker 1: more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, thank you for
Speaker 1: being here with me. It's a bit of a cold
Speaker 1: and dreary Monday in New York City, hopefully a little
Speaker 1: more charming wherever you are across the country and around
Speaker 1: the world. But the good news is when it's not
Speaker 1: beautiful and sunny outside, there is no better place to
Speaker 1: be than in the Freedom Hunt. Here with producer Mark,
Speaker 1: who even on the darkest days, is a ray of
Speaker 1: sunshine for all of us. So let's get to what
Speaker 1: when I wanted to begin are a deep dive into
Speaker 1: all things that matter today. With and that is the
Speaker 1: Attorney General speaking over the weekend. Now we have all
Speaker 1: of this focus on the impeachment proceedings and more witnesses
Speaker 1: this week. Vin Minn is going to be one of them.
Speaker 1: There are a few other witnesses I believe, in aid
Speaker 1: to Vice President Pence will speak. And there is a
Speaker 1: clear idea from the Democrats on the left of what's
Speaker 1: supposed to happen here, which is that the steady drum
Speaker 1: beat of witness witness witness polls that are negative for
Speaker 1: the president, witnesses that are negative for the president, that
Speaker 1: this will shape opinion over time. Even if you don't
Speaker 1: view this, or you haven't viewed this from the beginning
Speaker 1: as a worthwhile exercise, you feel like they're trying to
Speaker 1: make this allegation against the president seemed much more damaging
Speaker 1: than it really is. They're hyping this whole thing up.
Speaker 1: Even if you feel that way, certainly I do, and
Speaker 1: then some even stronger, even more strongly than I've described there.
Speaker 1: The media understands that part of the effect of propaganda
Speaker 1: is to shift opinion through repetition. One of the things
Speaker 1: that they can accomplish is just by saying day in
Speaker 1: and day out. The president's going to be the president
Speaker 1: should be impeached. He's going to be impeached. The public
Speaker 1: is against the president. People start to even subconsciously say
Speaker 1: to themselves, Wow, I guess there really is a means
Speaker 1: for there really is a necessity for impeachment here. And remember,
Speaker 1: they're not going to convince you and me, or at
Speaker 1: least those of you who like me are very supportive
Speaker 1: of the president despite understanding his flaws. What they're hoping
Speaker 1: is that they can just edge up enough of the
Speaker 1: opposition to the president from the roughly forty percent of
Speaker 1: liberals who will believe anything about Trump, will do anything
Speaker 1: to get rid of Trump, to get it just above
Speaker 1: that you keep saying these polls the fifty one percent mark.
Speaker 1: They're hoping that if they can manage that accomplishment, then
Speaker 1: there'll be enough of a ground swell to get rid
Speaker 1: of this president, and perhaps not through the removal proceeding
Speaker 1: by the Senate after a Senate trial, but that he
Speaker 1: will go into reelection wounded in the court of public opinion.
Speaker 1: He will go into reelection with a newly emboldened left
Speaker 1: wing opposition against him and a somewhat chasten demoralized Trump support.
Speaker 1: That is the purpose of all of this. That's what
Speaker 1: they have been saying all along. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: take a step back from this for a minute, because
Speaker 1: part of the justification of the impeachment proceeding part whatever,
Speaker 1: now it's now it's full impeachment. It was an inquiry
Speaker 1: whatever they're calling this now now the impeachment investigation is
Speaker 1: that the president has been so terrible that he has
Speaker 1: shredded the constitution. This is what you often here. He
Speaker 1: has been shredding the norms that really hold this country politically, culturally,
Speaker 1: legally together, and that there's really a they're making an
Speaker 1: argument that it is the totality of all things Trump
Speaker 1: that is impeachable. It's not even just any one specific act,
Speaker 1: of course, it can't be. They keep changing what that
Speaker 1: specific act would be with every passing week, with each
Speaker 1: passing day. In some cases, Molluman's clause, Russia collusion, quid
Speaker 1: pro quo, twenty fifth Amendment. Just go down the list
Speaker 1: of all these different things that they say they're going
Speaker 1: to either use or will be the justification for using
Speaker 1: as a means of getting rid of the president. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a cycle it's a rotation. It's this, it's that,
Speaker 1: it's this, it's that, and now you're seeing that. To
Speaker 1: hold all this together to be the overarching theme for
Speaker 1: the series of narratives about Trump being reckless and destroying
Speaker 1: the country is that he is destroying the norms. He
Speaker 1: is shredding the rule of law. And what I really
Speaker 1: liked is that this week at Attorney General bar who
Speaker 1: you know is effective because the left hates him. This
Speaker 1: is a guy who's a very yeah, pretty uh laid back,
Speaker 1: i'd say, in his demeanor, a lawyer's lawyer. Was in
Speaker 1: the specifically in the part of the Dutch Department before
Speaker 1: where the lawyers who evaluate what is what is department policy,
Speaker 1: what is constitutional, what is not. So he's a brilliant lawyer.
Speaker 1: They keep saying he's a hatchetman for Trump, even though
Speaker 1: he had already been Attorney general and there was no
Speaker 1: one saying he was a hatchetman them. Then he's a
Speaker 1: brilliant lawyer. Though he spoke at the Federalist Society of
Speaker 1: the weekend and it was a brilliant speech. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you aren't another time to watch the
Speaker 1: whole hour and thirty minutes or so of it. But
Speaker 1: I would tell you could just jump to the latter portion,
Speaker 1: last thirty minutes or so, where he really gets into
Speaker 1: the meat of what's going on right now, of the
Speaker 1: way the resistance is waging its campaign against the president,
Speaker 1: and how it is they who are trashing the rule
Speaker 1: of law. They're the ones who are discarding norms and
Speaker 1: engaging in a scorched earth campaign against the president. And
Speaker 1: this one we had a couple moments here, But first
Speaker 1: he gets into the tactics of a left and then
Speaker 1: he will get into who really who are the left
Speaker 1: these days? When I use that term, we get to
Speaker 1: the phrase, But first, let's start with the tactical approach.
Speaker 1: This was a brilliant amation from a fantastic lawyer who
Speaker 1: knows what the president is up against, who's on the
Speaker 1: front lines as the attorney general of the judicial overreach
Speaker 1: that is a tool against the president. They're pretty open
Speaker 1: about the hashtag resistance judiciary. Here's the Attorney General saying
Speaker 1: for himself, please play clip two. Unfortunately, just in the
Speaker 1: past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on
Speaker 1: an entirely new character. Immediately after President Trump won election,
Speaker 1: opponents inaugurated what they called the resistance, and they rallied
Speaker 1: around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver
Speaker 1: to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.
Speaker 1: The fact of the matter is that in waging a
Speaker 1: scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance against this administration,
Speaker 1: it is the left that is engaged in the systematic
Speaker 1: shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law. Every
Speaker 1: American needs to hear that speech. A lot of them
Speaker 1: will disagree say that Barr is just a tool of Trump.
Speaker 1: This is the crux of what we are seeing right
Speaker 1: now with impeachment, with the Democrat and the lefts war
Speaker 1: on this president, abusing the bureaucracy, weaponizing the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: usurping executive authority through the judicial branch. This is what
Speaker 1: they are doing, and it is in fact, very much
Speaker 1: out of the Saul Olinsky playbook. This goes back to
Speaker 1: the community, the origins of community organizers and doing things that,
Speaker 1: while not explicitly illegal, are meant to use the system
Speaker 1: against itself to shut it down. We'll get into universal injunctions,
Speaker 1: which the Attorney General speaks about at some length in
Speaker 1: just a few minutes. That's one of the primary methods
Speaker 1: of sabotage used against this administration. Judges have been essential
Speaker 1: in this process to the left, and they've been acting
Speaker 1: in bad faith, and their decisions are appalling, and they
Speaker 1: do violence to the rule of law while saying they
Speaker 1: are protecting the rule of law. But the systematic shredding
Speaker 1: of norms and undermining the rule of law is what
Speaker 1: the left has completely embraced in the era of Trump.
Speaker 1: And they accuse us, they accuse our side of doing that.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who say that this president is a fascist,
Speaker 1: this president's an authoritarian. Meanwhile, there are six hundred judges
Speaker 1: on the federal bench from what bar sent him his speech.
Speaker 1: If you count them all up, you know all the
Speaker 1: different judges, circuit judges, and feder judges across the country.
Speaker 1: Any one of them has been able to shut down
Speaker 1: administration policy at any point in time. It's appalling what
Speaker 1: they have been doing. How could anyone have faith at
Speaker 1: the rule of law is universally applicable to all people
Speaker 1: in this country, that the justice system isn't just now
Speaker 1: a series of excuses used by the left to get
Speaker 1: what they want when they want it, that's what the
Speaker 1: system has delivered. Or to undermine the system and say
Speaker 1: that it's biased, it's unfair. The ideology of intersectionality, the
Speaker 1: Marxism underlying all of this on the left is a
Speaker 1: constant excuse for, well, the very system itself is imbalanced.
Speaker 1: One day, it's we have to do whatever the system
Speaker 1: says when they like it. When the election happen. When
Speaker 1: Obama wins the election, it's election, elections have consequences. When
Speaker 1: Trump wins the election, it's let's get rid of the
Speaker 1: electoral college, let's add seats to the next president who's
Speaker 1: a Democrat, so that they can stack the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: That all of a sudden, institutions don't matter. And they
Speaker 1: keep doing this, and they seem to think that we
Speaker 1: don't recognize, but we do recognize. We understand that they
Speaker 1: want what they want. But perhaps even more important in
Speaker 1: some ways than when Barre illustrated the processes by which
Speaker 1: the left is undermining the processes of government, the ways
Speaker 1: in which they are duplicitous when they talk about institutions
Speaker 1: and rule of law. How it's not serious, it's not
Speaker 1: rooted in principle, it's completely the system a la carte.
Speaker 1: Some days they want to order this, some days they
Speaker 1: want to order that. It doesn't matter what they did
Speaker 1: the day before. Barr also understands why liberals feel this way.
Speaker 1: What is it about the left wing mentality? And this
Speaker 1: is true, This is the primary psychological emotional motivation that
Speaker 1: the left has for so many of the policies, really
Speaker 1: for the majority of the primary issues that you look
Speaker 1: at today that this country faces. Why does the left
Speaker 1: take the approach that it does. What is their governing philosophy,
Speaker 1: or rather, what is their philosophy of life that makes
Speaker 1: them want to leverage the government so that it can
Speaker 1: control every aspect of life? Why do they want this?
Speaker 1: Why does the left think this way? Well, the Attorney
Speaker 1: General in his speech nailed it. Please play Prus marclip three.
Speaker 1: In any age, the so called progresses treat politics as
Speaker 1: a religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive
Speaker 1: power of the state to remake man and society in
Speaker 1: their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection.
Speaker 1: Whatever means they use are therefore justified, because by definition
Speaker 1: they are virtuous people pursuing a end. They are willing
Speaker 1: to use any means necessary. To gain momentary advantage in
Speaker 1: achieving their end, regardless of the collateral consequences and the
Speaker 1: systemic implications. They never ask whether the action they take
Speaker 1: could be justified as a general rule of conduct equally
Speaker 1: applicable to all sides. When the left has power, it
Speaker 1: must be utilized in service of this mission of the
Speaker 1: daification of man through government. Government will make us better
Speaker 1: than we would otherwise be. But whatever power is used
Speaker 1: to that end is inherently justified. But when people that
Speaker 1: don't agree with their government ends are in power, then
Speaker 1: that same mentality goes in reverse. It's no longer justifiable
Speaker 1: to use government, say to protect individual freedoms to do less.
Speaker 1: Now it must be the case that anything is justified
Speaker 1: against that cause. If they can do anything they want,
Speaker 1: because they know that if they have the power of government,
Speaker 1: they will make a utopia here in this country. Then
Speaker 1: when people who disagree with them are in power, they
Speaker 1: must do in their own mind whatever they have to
Speaker 1: in order to rest power away from those people to
Speaker 1: create the utopia that they have been promising. It is
Speaker 1: one of the best summations of left wing thought left
Speaker 1: wing ideology I have ever come across. It is devastating
Speaker 1: in its truth, and it is necessary for all people,
Speaker 1: even leftists who will discount it, to hear because it
Speaker 1: is what we face right now in this country, and
Speaker 1: not just turning for a moment to the specifics of
Speaker 1: how the process is used against the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and the ways that this is done in
Speaker 1: bad faith. I mentioned universal injunctions when I was in DC.
Speaker 1: Spoke to some senior Department of Justice people about this
Speaker 1: behind closed doors on more than one occasion, and this
Speaker 1: has become a major frustration of the administration, that this
Speaker 1: is really a perversion of the role of the courts,
Speaker 1: and that not only should the courts not be doing
Speaker 1: this as a general rule, there's a a clear change
Speaker 1: in the attitude of left wing judges appointed by left
Speaker 1: wing politicians who think that just because they don't like
Speaker 1: a thing, they have the right to stop it from
Speaker 1: happening and find the flimsiest legal rationale, the flimsiest the
Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act, or some other such utter nonsense not
Speaker 1: intended for the purpose that the left is using it.
Speaker 1: Here is the Attorney General speaking about those universal injunction
Speaker 1: pay twenty two. The court's indulgence of such claims, even
Speaker 1: if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on
Speaker 1: the president's constitutional prerogatives. The impact of these judicial intrusions
Speaker 1: on the executive responsibility have been hugely magnified by another
Speaker 1: judicial innovation, the nationwide injunction, first used in nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: three and sparingly since then until recently. These court orders
Speaker 1: enjoined enforcement of a policy not just as to the
Speaker 1: parties before the court, but nationwide against everybody. Now, since
Speaker 1: President Trump has taken office, district courts have issued over
Speaker 1: forty nationwide injunctions against the government. By comparison, during President
Speaker 1: Obama's first two years, district courts had issued two nationwide
Speaker 1: in junctions, both of which immediately vacated by the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 1: It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major
Speaker 1: policy of the Trump administration has been subjected to immediate
Speaker 1: freezing by the lower courts. No other president has been
Speaker 1: subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his agenda sabotage
Speaker 1: by judges in the name of the very system that
Speaker 1: they are using for the sabotage. It's appalling a twenty
Speaker 1: x increase in universal injunctions from federal judges from Obama
Speaker 1: to Trump of the same period. Does anyone think that
Speaker 1: that's an accident? You might say, well, then why is
Speaker 1: it that this happens in this way? Because the Left
Speaker 1: go back to the justification for all of their actions
Speaker 1: that he gave the day offication, the deification of the
Speaker 1: state and the people in it through government power. How
Speaker 1: can you compete with that? We'll come back team. So, so,
Speaker 1: as I was saying about universal injunctions, the basis for
Speaker 1: this is flimsy enough as it is, because initially you
Speaker 1: would think that it would just enjoy the two parties
Speaker 1: in court. But what ends up happening is someone brings
Speaker 1: they go jurisdiction shopping, usually it is the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: and for pure reasons of policy difference, they will bring
Speaker 1: this suit in a federal court, and any federal judge
Speaker 1: can just say, I forbid the Trump administration from doing
Speaker 1: this thing anywhere in the federal jurisdiction of the United States,
Speaker 1: and until an appeals court comes along, until it makes
Speaker 1: its way up the chain. That is the way the
Speaker 1: system works right now. The only way to go around it,
Speaker 1: the only to deal with it, would be if Trump
Speaker 1: did do something that would start to kick a little
Speaker 1: bit at the load bearing walls of the very separation
Speaker 1: of powers that we have and say, well, we're just
Speaker 1: going to ignore the court. That could happen. Some might
Speaker 1: argue even that that's a necessary thing to happen on
Speaker 1: some of these issues, but that would clearly create a standoff,
Speaker 1: and people would start to ask, well, who which branch
Speaker 1: of government is correct in this one? The decisions that
Speaker 1: are being made by the way these injunctions against Trump
Speaker 1: are wrong. That's one thing about it that's so interesting
Speaker 1: is that they make their way up to higher levels
Speaker 1: in the courts, and overwhelmingly the Trump administration is victorious
Speaker 1: on this. You see this with the travel ban. I
Speaker 1: remember the travel ban. That was what Sally Yates, the
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance Obama appointee interm Attorney General, refused to enforce.
Speaker 1: She was so that the Trump administration was violating the
Speaker 1: Constitution that she disobeyed a direct order from the commander
Speaker 1: in chief as the acting attorney general had to be fired.
Speaker 1: Turns out Trump administration was correct on the merits that
Speaker 1: they're completely within their rights under executive power to have
Speaker 1: a temporary withdrawal of permission to come to the United
Speaker 1: States for aliens from countries that are harboring or have
Speaker 1: terrorist issues. Turns out Trump was right. Do we ever
Speaker 1: hear about how well? Why did wait a second, how
Speaker 1: could the acting Attorney general be so wrong? How could
Speaker 1: she be so ignorant of the law that she would
Speaker 1: disobey a direct order? And turns out the order's lawful
Speaker 1: because she's hashtag resistance. She's also the same person who
Speaker 1: was involved in the pretext of setting up General Flynn,
Speaker 1: sending over FBI agents pretending like their colleagues and just
Speaker 1: work through a quick issue and then maybe you lie
Speaker 1: to us. They changed the three O two the record
Speaker 1: of that FBI meeting after the fact. Lisa Page, in fact,
Speaker 1: was the one who changed it. We remember what she
Speaker 1: thought about Trump and people who voted for Trump, people
Speaker 1: who worked for Trump. We're told that's all a coincidence.
Speaker 1: Though nothing to see there. Oh, that was all a
Speaker 1: completely legitimate law enforcement effort. Universal injunctions are the hijacking
Speaker 1: of the judiciary for anti Trump ends. That's what has
Speaker 1: happened in this country. It has slowed down Trump's agenda
Speaker 1: for people who are upset and I saw the headline
Speaker 1: today that would drudge that there were less deportations under
Speaker 1: Trump than they were under Obama. Will keep in mind
Speaker 1: that Obama not only did not have the judiciary taking
Speaker 1: away his powers as president United States because there are
Speaker 1: some left wing judges who don't like him, they in
Speaker 1: fact would sit by and let him exceed his authority
Speaker 1: as commander in chief, exceed his executive powers as he did.
Speaker 1: When finally the I believe it was the Fifth Circuit
Speaker 1: Court had to say, no, you can't just use prosecutorial
Speaker 1: discretion effectively enforcement prioritization another way of saying it, to
Speaker 1: not only let people stay in the country who are
Speaker 1: in violation of law. This is the whole Dreamer thing.
Speaker 1: This is DACA right deferred action for childhood arrivals. Not
Speaker 1: only is that, by the way, an abuse of executive discretion,
Speaker 1: but to say DAPPA now the parents as well. Well,
Speaker 1: what if the president just says dreamers. If President Obama
Speaker 1: had said dreamers, the parents of dreamers and anybody who
Speaker 1: knows somebody who's either a dreamer or a parent of
Speaker 1: a dreamer, you know, their associates, they all get to
Speaker 1: stay in the country. That's just mass amnesty the executive
Speaker 1: feat would that be okay? I assure you there are
Speaker 1: a lot of left wing federal judges who would say, yes,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to do because they like it. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what the law means, what the system would produce.
Speaker 1: If people who are dispassionate about the outcome looked at it,
Speaker 1: they want a certain outcome, they will justify a certain outcome.
Speaker 1: The ends justify the means. That is the approach of
Speaker 1: the American left always. But to add insult to injury,
Speaker 1: Obama does this. The Fifth Circuit says, no, you can't
Speaker 1: do Dappa as well. You can't give people work permits
Speaker 1: and confer all these rights just because you feel like
Speaker 1: it in contravention of congressional intent, which is there are
Speaker 1: immigration laws they have written that are supposed to matter.
Speaker 1: You can't just wipe that all away. It's an enormous
Speaker 1: actual abuse of executive discretion. Obama himself had said he
Speaker 1: did not have the authority to do this as a
Speaker 1: means of trying to pressure Congress to do something, and
Speaker 1: then they didn't, as is their right, and then Obama goes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll just do it anyway. Was anyone calling him a
Speaker 1: fascist in the paper, was anyone saying he was an authoritarian.
Speaker 1: He was wiping away the laws of this country because
Speaker 1: he felt like it, because it was the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. That's what he say is the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. And then to bring this full circle, an
Speaker 1: act of discretion by one executive is countermanded. The Trump
Speaker 1: presidency begins. Trump looks at this and says, all right,
Speaker 1: we're going to have to have some kind of a
Speaker 1: negotiation over immigration here. But I'm not going to continue
Speaker 1: this policy of my predecessor, where he decided that under
Speaker 1: his discretion as the president of the United States, there
Speaker 1: would not there would be a top down order through
Speaker 1: the executive branch that these dreamers as they are called,
Speaker 1: these young illegal aliens not all that young now, but
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't be prosecuted. Trump goes, well, no, we're
Speaker 1: not going to continue with this official policy of the government.
Speaker 1: And what do you know. A judge in California goes, nope, sorry,
Speaker 1: what Obama half done? You cannot undo. How could any
Speaker 1: person justify this? How could anyone who calls themselves a lawyer,
Speaker 1: a legal scholar, a judge, somebody who is steeped in
Speaker 1: these issues, you would think would really know what the
Speaker 1: implications are of this kind of emotion based recklessness when
Speaker 1: it comes to the law. You would think that a
Speaker 1: judge would know better. But of course judges don't know
Speaker 1: better because they're getting what they want in the process,
Speaker 1: slowing it down. As a result, President Trump, because of
Speaker 1: federal judges in the state of California, or one federal
Speaker 1: judge in the state of California in particular, President Trump
Speaker 1: has had to continue for three years the policy of
Speaker 1: his predecessor on immigration that was rooted entirely in executive discretion.
Speaker 1: No Act of Congress, no statute whatsoever, was an abuse
Speaker 1: of that discretion in the first place, And now judges
Speaker 1: say that Trump can undo it because of the Administrative
Speaker 1: Procedures Act. You must be kidding me. This is why
Speaker 1: I tweeted out after Baghdaddy was killed himself with our
Speaker 1: operators Special Forces operators or Delta Force operators right on
Speaker 1: his trail, I said, oh, I'll just give it a
Speaker 1: matter of a matter of hours before the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: overturns Baghdaddy's killing under the Administrative Procedure Act. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 1: I'm making a joke. But this is farcical. This is
Speaker 1: preposterous that people are being taught, and I know they
Speaker 1: are in law schools that what's going on right now
Speaker 1: is respecting the process and the law. They're destroying the law.
Speaker 1: They're destroying what's supposed to be applicable to both sides.
Speaker 1: Power that one side has in a certain circumstance the
Speaker 1: other side is supposed to have. There is no good
Speaker 1: faith anymore in the way they approach this administration. And
Speaker 1: I think going forward you'll see this with any administration.
Speaker 1: It is just political total war. Whatever they have to
Speaker 1: do to get what they want, however they have to push,
Speaker 1: whatever construct they have to come up with. The media
Speaker 1: will magnify their lies, their shoddy analysis and say, oh no,
Speaker 1: this is what's great. Trump a Trump is a racist.
Speaker 1: Trump is an authoritarian. He's a fascist. Forget about the
Speaker 1: fact that it is in fact the left that is
Speaker 1: willing to destroy this system in order to tear down
Speaker 1: the president of the United States. And it comes from
Speaker 1: even before Trump. The case that he felt was the
Speaker 1: single greatest usurpation of executive authority was Bumtian, which had
Speaker 1: to do with the detainment of an all unlawful combatant
Speaker 1: during a time of war. In the Global War on Terror,
Speaker 1: when the courts came into rule, the federal judiciary system
Speaker 1: decided that the President of the United States has to
Speaker 1: confer the same internal due process and legal rights to
Speaker 1: an unlawful combatant in a time of war as they
Speaker 1: would for somebody who was detained inside this country. Well,
Speaker 1: is there any area of the law where the president
Speaker 1: is supposed to have a greater degree of leeway and
Speaker 1: discretion to include mistakes and collateral damage than in repulsing
Speaker 1: foreign adversaries, foreign invasion, foreign attackers. If you go back
Speaker 1: to the vision of the founders, this is why one
Speaker 1: of the reasons for an executive branch, which initially was
Speaker 1: going to be really almost an errand boy of the legislature,
Speaker 1: if you go back to the before the Constitutional Convention.
Speaker 1: But one of the reasons for this creation was specifically
Speaker 1: because they knew that if you get if all of
Speaker 1: a sudden the British invaded, as they did again, you
Speaker 1: need somebody who can give orders that will be executed
Speaker 1: to repulse that invasion and to defend the very political
Speaker 1: community that the Constitution is meant to protect. An auld
Speaker 1: and now the courts are coming and saying no, you
Speaker 1: can't do that. In fact, the courts tried to create
Speaker 1: in the whole mess over the so called Muslim band,
Speaker 1: a universal right around the world to get into a
Speaker 1: US court to challenge, as a foreigner with no rights
Speaker 1: or ties whatsoever to the United States, to challenge your
Speaker 1: exclusion from the country based on executive authority. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know that, you know, it's easier to sit around
Speaker 1: and yell about the swamp and the swamp rats and
Speaker 1: drain the swamp and Maga and the wall and everything else.
Speaker 1: And look, I'm all for the cultural aspects and the
Speaker 1: communication aspects of the Trump vision because we have to
Speaker 1: win elections. So I'm not putting all that down. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying what is happening here, What is happening in
Speaker 1: the judiciary, and with a left wing that views itself
Speaker 1: as inherently justified in taking any act, this has ramifications
Speaker 1: even beyond the Trump administration. And this is really really important.
Speaker 1: They are corrupting, They are undermining some of the most
Speaker 1: powerful institutions in our government. They are imbalancing the balance
Speaker 1: of powers intentionally, so they are proving to any American
Speaker 1: who's willing to open his or her eyes that they
Speaker 1: do not approach these issues with good faith. They do
Speaker 1: not care what the collateral damages to the system. And
Speaker 1: as they do this, they claim they are saving the
Speaker 1: system in the error of Trump. The left is willing
Speaker 1: to burn down the village of this American experiment in
Speaker 1: order to save it. That is what they may not
Speaker 1: recognize it as such, that is what they are doing.
Speaker 1: There is no person who could look at the way
Speaker 1: that they have been leveraging, specifically the judiciary as a
Speaker 1: weapon as a club to batter this Trump administration with,
Speaker 1: and not say, how are we supposed to have faith
Speaker 1: in this institution going forward? This is also why it
Speaker 1: looms so large in the mind to the left, the
Speaker 1: prospect of not being able to count on a left
Speaker 1: of center Supreme Court, of not being able to count
Speaker 1: on an ultimate judicial body that will give them the
Speaker 1: most important policy and cultural and political victories that they've
Speaker 1: been wanting for decades. Many leftists feel like they can't
Speaker 1: live in America, or that's not the case. The least
Speaker 1: they'll say that openly. If they can't have a left
Speaker 1: of center court, a bunch of dictators in robes deciding
Speaker 1: what will be in America irrespective of what the law
Speaker 1: actually says. Then they no longer respect the law. This
Speaker 1: goes back to progressives, as the Attorney General said, treating
Speaker 1: politics as a religion, with the holy mission to use
Speaker 1: the coercive power of the state to remake man and
Speaker 1: society in their own image according to an abstract ideal
Speaker 1: of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified, because
Speaker 1: by definition they are a virtuous people pursuing deific ends.
Speaker 1: For the left, the utopia they seek is the only
Speaker 1: justification for any means. We are seeing that play out
Speaker 1: in real time in this country, including in the weaponization
Speaker 1: of impeachment as an explicitly partisan tool. Why are we
Speaker 1: going to use the impeachment mechanism against this president? Why
Speaker 1: are the leftist? Why are Nanci Pelosi walking around saying
Speaker 1: things that they must know to be untrue. They're not
Speaker 1: that stupid. They know what they're saying is a lie.
Speaker 1: Because anything to defeat Trump is inherently justified. Anything to
Speaker 1: her his chances at reelection, or even to remove him
Speaker 1: from office has to be justified. My friends, This kind
Speaker 1: of absolutism is the wellspring of totalitarianism. Do not forget it.
Speaker 1: I think that what you're going to see in the
Speaker 1: next weeks to come is this president will be impeached,
Speaker 1: and he should be impeached. And he should be impeached
Speaker 1: because he has used his office to obstruct justice. He
Speaker 1: should be impeached because he is in violation of the
Speaker 1: Emolument's clause of the Constitution, and where he is very blatantly,
Speaker 1: i mean really incredibly used his office to make more
Speaker 1: money for his family. And lastly, of course he should
Speaker 1: be in peach because he has used national security aid
Speaker 1: to Ukraine in order to try to undermine a potential
Speaker 1: political opponent. And those are roll grounds for impeachment. Why
Speaker 1: have this whole sham of an investigation. If somebody like
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, who's a sitting senator and who therefore will
Speaker 1: be called upon as this goes along, to cast a
Speaker 1: vote in favor of removing the president United States, we
Speaker 1: really have to sit around and pretend that the Democrats
Speaker 1: haven't already made up their mind here. People like Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi look at us and say, wait, we don't know
Speaker 1: if it's going to be impeachment or not. No, they're
Speaker 1: going to impeach this president, and if they could remove him,
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it, if they happen to have
Speaker 1: the two thirds votes required in the Senate, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'll be complaints about that, and they will
Speaker 1: start to say it should just be a bare majority, right,
Speaker 1: just a basic majority in the Senate should be enough,
Speaker 1: because then the Democrats would feel like they could probably
Speaker 1: pressure one or two, maybe three Republicans switch. They'll be
Speaker 1: complaining about that part of the system. Because they complained
Speaker 1: about any part of this. It doesn't give them what
Speaker 1: they want. But if they're going to tell us that
Speaker 1: Trump is already guilty, why have this political trial? It's
Speaker 1: all sham, folks, welcome back team. So what exactly do
Speaker 1: the Democrats say, this whole impeachment thing is is about
Speaker 1: how's it's going to go? You know, what's their position
Speaker 1: on this? Nancy Pelosi was saying some bonkers stuff over
Speaker 1: the weekend, which I guess not surprising, is Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's out there saying that the president has the
Speaker 1: right to defend himself and this impeachment inquiry if he
Speaker 1: wants to, and people would say, well, why would he,
Speaker 1: why would he do that. Here's Nancy telling us all that,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe the president has some super secret things
Speaker 1: somewhere that he just wants to present us. I can't
Speaker 1: believe this woman, speak of the House, folks. But here
Speaker 1: we are play six. That vote has not taken place
Speaker 1: to proceed necessarily with impeachment. But do you think you'll
Speaker 1: go through all of this and not vote to impeach
Speaker 1: the president? That remains with the facts of the president
Speaker 1: has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this,
Speaker 1: which we haven't seen. His trans transcript of a phone
Speaker 1: call is tucked away in a high high at least
Speaker 1: sensitive compartmentalized intelligence server, so we can't see that. If
Speaker 1: he has information that is exculptatory that means X taking
Speaker 1: away cult the blame, then we look forward to seeing him.
Speaker 1: It's like maybe he's got some you know, magic genie
Speaker 1: in a bottle somewhere. It's gonna just like make him
Speaker 1: innocent of everything. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, do anyone does
Speaker 1: anyone who's a serious even being listener and say, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're not going to impeach the president. Sure, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a possible future in which they're gonna say, wow,
Speaker 1: you mean Trump is and it's into all the horrible
Speaker 1: things we've been saying about him for three years now.
Speaker 1: She speaks to us all like we're idiots, folks. She
Speaker 1: really does. No one holds her accountable for it. Would
Speaker 1: you ever vote to not impeach a president? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe he is going to be defending us against an
Speaker 1: invasion of space aliens and at that point we'll have
Speaker 1: to just rally around our presence, So maybe we want
Speaker 1: impeach him then, I mean, that's more or less what
Speaker 1: she's saying. This is absurd. But she can't she can't
Speaker 1: give away the whole game here, can't tell us what's
Speaker 1: really going to happen, which is that all of this
Speaker 1: pretense that there's they're presenting information to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this, to get to the facts. We already
Speaker 1: know the facts. We already know what was said of
Speaker 1: the phone call. They already released the transcript. So what
Speaker 1: I saw today a poll that said that seventy percent
Speaker 1: of people seventy percent of people in the poll think
Speaker 1: that the president's conversation was wrong. I don't think it
Speaker 1: was wrong. I think it was unwise because he would
Speaker 1: he should know that there are deep state elements that
Speaker 1: have access to his conversations that could twist it and
Speaker 1: do exactly what we have seen happen right now. I
Speaker 1: think he should have been more careful, But then again,
Speaker 1: I'm sure some of you would come back to me with, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: how careful can he be when they're willing to twist
Speaker 1: his words and lie about him and break the law
Speaker 1: in some cases to leak about this president or some
Speaker 1: of his advisors and what they've done. They're willing to
Speaker 1: do anything, as the Attorney General said, They're willing to
Speaker 1: justify whatever it is that they think they have to do.
Speaker 1: They believe it's inherently justified if it's anti Trump. So
Speaker 1: how careful could he be? That's another point of view
Speaker 1: on this, although I think the President probably could be
Speaker 1: a little bit more cautious in how he speaks about
Speaker 1: things and what he says. But this then leads us
Speaker 1: to where they really want to take it. This week,
Speaker 1: the oh the president should testify in his defense. Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: for example, hopping on this bandwagon. Here's what he said,
Speaker 1: play ten. Donald Trump doesn't agree with what he's hearing,
Speaker 1: doesn't like what he's hearing, he shouldn't tweet, he should
Speaker 1: come to the committee and testify under oath, and he
Speaker 1: should allow all those around him to come to the
Speaker 1: committee and testify under oath. I would just respond to Schumer,
Speaker 1: how dare you really you think that your ridiculous little
Speaker 1: committee of partisan hacks should be able to pull the
Speaker 1: presence of the United States in a coequal branch of
Speaker 1: government and harangue him and mock him and try to
Speaker 1: entrap him, perhaps in perjury. Now, President Trump did tweet
Speaker 1: about this and said that he would think about it,
Speaker 1: and I'm here to say that it would be wrong
Speaker 1: for the president to do this on many levels. It
Speaker 1: would be wrong from the perspective of the lack of
Speaker 1: respect that it would show for the separation of powers.
Speaker 1: What's to prevent the next administration, the administration after that,
Speaker 1: from having just a bare majority in the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives get to pull the President of United States in
Speaker 1: and use it as an opportunity to grandstand and assault
Speaker 1: the President of the United States verbally in front of
Speaker 1: the whole country for partisan ends. That's the precedent that
Speaker 1: we should have set here. This is absurd, But these
Speaker 1: people are absurd. These Democrats who keep saying these things
Speaker 1: about Trump and who keep making claims about their willingness
Speaker 1: to respect the system. They are lieing. They are lying
Speaker 1: about this. We know what they're going to do, we
Speaker 1: know how they feel. We are all smart enough to
Speaker 1: figure this out if we just spend a moment thinking
Speaker 1: about it. And yet here they have. Here you have
Speaker 1: a Senator Chuck Schumer telling us that the president should
Speaker 1: Could you imagine for a moment. I mean, this was
Speaker 1: just like the old playbook, though, isn't it. They They've
Speaker 1: got these these routines they go through to try to
Speaker 1: undermine the president. Remember, originally it was they wanted him
Speaker 1: to testify to Muller, that sham of a probe run
Speaker 1: by Weissman, now an MSNBC analyst, folks gee, I wonder
Speaker 1: what his politics are. They were going to let Weissman
Speaker 1: and his Democrat attack dogs go after the President of
Speaker 1: the United States under oath, try to provoke a crisis,
Speaker 1: a moment perhaps that they would seize on as lying
Speaker 1: under oath. Keep in mind that when it's a lie
Speaker 1: and not a lie is something that's always up for interpretation.
Speaker 1: For Democrats, Bill Clinton, did he lie in the oath.
Speaker 1: Of course he did. But they say that that wasn't
Speaker 1: a crime lie, that was just like a personal lie. Huh.
Speaker 1: There we go. He ends justify the means whatever they
Speaker 1: want they get. There's no real rules that apply. You're
Speaker 1: gonna have the president testify to them all approbe And
Speaker 1: now they want to have the President subject himself to
Speaker 1: Democrats in Congress being able to pull him apart in
Speaker 1: public and make all kinds of accusations. And then if
Speaker 1: the President responds by the way, it would also undermine,
Speaker 1: in my view, would undermine the Congress because this president,
Speaker 1: if he did do this, it would be quite a spectacle.
Speaker 1: And I worry because this president's a fighter. I worry
Speaker 1: about his judgment on these issues. Sometimes you do get
Speaker 1: the sense that if left to his own devices, perhaps
Speaker 1: he would have testified or would have subjected himself, I
Speaker 1: should say, to questioning the Mullet probe and left to
Speaker 1: his own judgment and his own devices, I can't say
Speaker 1: I'm one hundred percent sure that he wouldn't subject himself
Speaker 1: to this congressional impeachment inquiry. The whole thing, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's just a fraud. It's just such a frauds, such
Speaker 1: a waste of everybody's time. And all these people who
Speaker 1: are saying that they want they think the president should
Speaker 1: be removed from office. Maybe the president should be removed
Speaker 1: from office. We'll find out in less than a year.
Speaker 1: It's called an election. There's anybody who believes in our
Speaker 1: system of government has good faith in the fact that
Speaker 1: you should be abled. You should be willing as an
Speaker 1: American to concede power to the other side when they
Speaker 1: duly win an election. Anyone who believes in that should
Speaker 1: think that the deference here, if there's any question about
Speaker 1: the president's conduct and whether it even could be construed
Speaker 1: as worthy of being removed from office, the deference should
Speaker 1: be given to the next election. The deference should be
Speaker 1: that the system we have is all about the will
Speaker 1: of the people ultimately, and that is evidence through the
Speaker 1: election process. That's what the president has the awesome powers
Speaker 1: that he does. It's because the people give that power
Speaker 1: to him through our system of government, and to take
Speaker 1: it away from him based on partisan whim and narrative
Speaker 1: and these lies, It's just what do the Democrats really
Speaker 1: think what happened after that? I always wonder about that too,
Speaker 1: If they did manage to remove the president and Vice
Speaker 1: President Pence all of a sudden became the president of
Speaker 1: the United States going into a reelection. Do they think
Speaker 1: that we want to have more lectures from the left
Speaker 1: about the need to respect our democracy and the system,
Speaker 1: and they really think that the Trump movement would go away,
Speaker 1: that the suspicion that many of us have that the
Speaker 1: political system is rigged by a class of elites who
Speaker 1: are much more bumbling fools than they are intellectual superiors.
Speaker 1: Do we think that that would go away? Or would
Speaker 1: it actually get worse? Would that sentiment be proven to
Speaker 1: be true and it would actually just harden. We would
Speaker 1: become even further entrenched in our opinions of this, We
Speaker 1: would be even more separated, more polarized, a word the
Speaker 1: media loves to use. I think we all know it
Speaker 1: would just get worse. I think we all know that
Speaker 1: it would by no means damp in the frenzy right
Speaker 1: now if you had this president removed from office. If anything,
Speaker 1: I think it would create a massive schism, not just
Speaker 1: a polarization of ideas, but a schism in this country
Speaker 1: and the belief that this is now still the country
Speaker 1: that was left to us by the founding fathers, that
Speaker 1: we still have a system that functions the way it
Speaker 1: claims to. It starts to get scary when you think
Speaker 1: about the removal of a president under these circumstances, with
Speaker 1: such a mountain of evidence that they've been trying to
Speaker 1: remove from from the very beginning, that he is not
Speaker 1: allowed to be president. Because they say so, people think
Speaker 1: this will improve the situation. They're delusional. But the Left
Speaker 1: is very delusional these days. That's one of the reasons why.
Speaker 1: That's why it's so troubling. They have no self awareness whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, for example, had this to say about how
Speaker 1: Trump is mean and he insults people. Play clip five.
Speaker 1: But the president and perhaps some of the White House
Speaker 1: have to know that the words of the president weigh
Speaker 1: a ton. They are very significant, and he should not
Speaker 1: frivolously throw out insults. But that's what he does. I
Speaker 1: think part of it is his own insecurity as an impostor.
Speaker 1: I think he knows full well that he's in that
Speaker 1: office way over his head, and so he has to
Speaker 1: diminish everyone else. Classic Nancy Pelosi moment. The President shouldn't
Speaker 1: insult people because he's a big dumb, stupid face who
Speaker 1: shouldn't be the president. Wow. Okay, Nancy, people should really
Speaker 1: listen to you. You're giving them really fair minded advice
Speaker 1: on all of this. But notice how she used the
Speaker 1: word impostor. I often speak to you about how the
Speaker 1: Democrats have not accepted the twenty sixteen election, and I
Speaker 1: mean that they have not accepted that they lost. Trump won,
Speaker 1: and that their rejection of him as a legitimate president
Speaker 1: is in fact a rejection of this system that we have.
Speaker 1: They can't claim to love the system, to want to
Speaker 1: protect it, to want to hold it close and keep
Speaker 1: it safe in the warm at night, and be upending it,
Speaker 1: throwing it out in the dead of night because they
Speaker 1: don't like what the system gave them in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what they're doing. Impostor. That's quite a word
Speaker 1: to use. That's the Speaker of the House, my friends,
Speaker 1: the most powerful elected Democrat in the country, and she
Speaker 1: is saying that the President of the United States is
Speaker 1: not legitimately the president. Those are her words, and it's
Speaker 1: not the first time this has been said. They have
Speaker 1: called him a traitor, they have called him a rapist,
Speaker 1: they have called him a racist, they've called him a
Speaker 1: white nationals and now they call him an impostor. If
Speaker 1: somebody really was an impostor, should you respect the office
Speaker 1: that they hold and the way that they conduct, the
Speaker 1: way that they use those powers while in office. Of
Speaker 1: course not, it's all illegitimate. Well, if Trump really is
Speaker 1: an impostor, and therefore everything that he has done and
Speaker 1: seeks to do is I jimate, doesn't that then justify
Speaker 1: any action whatsoever that the Left is willing to take
Speaker 1: in order to stop him, to slow him down, to
Speaker 1: make things harder. Ah, It's almost like what Attorney General
Speaker 1: Barr said about the true nature of the left and
Speaker 1: their willingness to go scorched earth, stop at nothing to
Speaker 1: obstruct this president. The Democrats themselves tell us this on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. They tell us what they think of
Speaker 1: as president, and therefore they also are telling us what
Speaker 1: they are willing to do to stop him. The answer
Speaker 1: that is absolutely anything. Twenty fourth of September, it was
Speaker 1: when I called for a fuller expansion inquiry. What's going on?
Speaker 1: But to proceed with the inquiry, and that kind of
Speaker 1: changed our communication until that day in the room when
Speaker 1: I said, all Rose, mister President, with you lead to Putin,
Speaker 1: whether it's giving them a strong or foothold in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, by what you did with Turkey and Syria. Well,
Speaker 1: what you did by withholding a grant was holding a
Speaker 1: to military assistance. Voted to buy Congress to Ukraine to
Speaker 1: the benefit of Putin Lemon thousand more than like thirteen
Speaker 1: thousand by now Ukrainians have died at the hands of
Speaker 1: the Russians. They needed that military aid. And with his
Speaker 1: disparaging remarks about NATO and questioning our commitment to NATO,
Speaker 1: that's to Putin's advantage. So we do have, shall we say,
Speaker 1: a candid relationship. Nancy Pelosi can't be that stupid. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think she's very bright. I think she's cunning.
Speaker 1: She's not wise, she's not in intellectual, but she's cunning.
Speaker 1: She does whatever she has to do to get what
Speaker 1: she wants and has been doing it for a long
Speaker 1: enough time that she's pretty good at it. Everything for
Speaker 1: the benefit of Putin. They really needed that military Really,
Speaker 1: where was wimpy Commander in Chief Obama on helping the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians when it came to Putin. Oh, let's just send
Speaker 1: them blankets. Let's send them, you know, sippy cups. No,
Speaker 1: they needed weapons. They needed weapons. Obama wouldn't give the
Speaker 1: weapons Trump. Would you think the Putin liked that? Do
Speaker 1: you think that that was? Someone explained this to me.
Speaker 1: Oh and in Syria, where Trump decided to let the
Speaker 1: battlefield commanders make the decisions necessary to defeat ices. That's
Speaker 1: why I got wrapped up so quickly. The speed of
Speaker 1: the air campaign, very underreported in the media, by the way,
Speaker 1: against the Islamic State, dramatically accelerated because of President Trump.
Speaker 1: Obama didn't want to deal with the risk and the
Speaker 1: collateral damage, but that also included when Trump was in charge,
Speaker 1: blowing up a couple of hundred Russians in the desert?
Speaker 1: Was that doing Putin's bidding? Was it doing Putin's bidding?
Speaker 1: When Trump put more sanctions on Russia than even Obama did.
Speaker 1: I want to know what exactly does Nancy Pelosi think
Speaker 1: are the outer limits of her ability to just make
Speaker 1: crap up all for the benefit of Putin. These people
Speaker 1: are grotesque in their mendacity or mendaciousness, one of those
Speaker 1: words is right. These people will lie to you. They
Speaker 1: will come up with narratives that serve a function in
Speaker 1: politics that aren't rooted in truth or reality, and they
Speaker 1: will run with it, and they will tell you that
Speaker 1: they're doing it for your benefit. The fact that Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is the most powerful Democrat in the country tells
Speaker 1: you really everything you have to know about the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: They are and justify the means, say what you have
Speaker 1: to say when you have to say it. There is
Speaker 1: no principle of fair play, There is no approach of
Speaker 1: good faith. It is all just how do we win
Speaker 1: and make the other side lose so then we can
Speaker 1: make them do whatever we want. No rules, no constitutional
Speaker 1: protections for them. Whatever we say the law is, that
Speaker 1: is what it shall be. That's Nancy Pelosi's Democrat Party
Speaker 1: for you. Of course, the New York Times has to
Speaker 1: attack the single biggest policy maneuver of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: so far, which is the tax cut, and they're trying
Speaker 1: to help. Now there's a difficulty that Democrats face going
Speaker 1: into this reelection. By the way, Mayor Pete Boodha Judge
Speaker 1: is now leading substantially in Iowa. My understanding is he
Speaker 1: has a huge ground game set up in Iowa, more
Speaker 1: than anybody else, and it makes some sense he's from
Speaker 1: neighboring Indiana. He is somebody who appeals to Midwesterners because
Speaker 1: he's from the Midwest. And if he can win in Iowa,
Speaker 1: then the storyline becomes, here's this young guy who's got
Speaker 1: an impressive resume and he's not old like Biden. And
Speaker 1: here's this young guy who if he's a front runner
Speaker 1: for our if he wins Iowa, maybe he should be
Speaker 1: the frontrunner overall, and you might have this mash a
Speaker 1: massive shift in support that would result afterwards. Right that
Speaker 1: that's his path to, if not outright victory in the primary,
Speaker 1: eventually certainly being a very powerful vice presidential candidate, because remember,
Speaker 1: Democrats have to there are certain states that this is
Speaker 1: all going to come down to, in places like Michigan
Speaker 1: and Wisconsin and Iowa. Those are places that Democrats need
Speaker 1: help if they're going to try to defeat Trump in
Speaker 1: the election. Assuming that Trump is allowed to get to
Speaker 1: the election before without being removed by these Democrat partisans hyperpartisans,
Speaker 1: perhaps I should say, but yeah, mayor Pete, who knew
Speaker 1: apparently the Beto approach of being the most woke woke
Speaker 1: person ever didn't work, and may repeats path of relative moderation. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop lecturing people about their Christian faith when
Speaker 1: it seems that his grasp may or Pete's grasp of
Speaker 1: the Gospel is tenuous. But he's gonna stop doing that
Speaker 1: and just start to sound a little more like he
Speaker 1: sounds like he might be more reasol. His policies are not.
Speaker 1: But he's a left wing guy. Medicare for all. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's a left wing candidate. But he's got some substantial
Speaker 1: support that seems to be building, particularly in Iowa. I'm
Speaker 1: expecting somebody other than Biden is going to win that primary.
Speaker 1: So we got to start thinking of who that's gonna be. Hello,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about her later. Oh, she's still thinking about it.
Speaker 1: You know, she is still thinking about it. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about you, America. Does it sound like Hillary Clinton? No?
Speaker 1: But did you know who I was talking about? Yes? So,
Speaker 1: But back to the necessity among those in the media
Speaker 1: to come up with an alternate view of the economic situation.
Speaker 1: Right now, they're churning out this machinery of Democrats support
Speaker 1: from the various newsrooms, the various major media outlets in
Speaker 1: the country, to say that the tax cuts didn't work,
Speaker 1: really they didn't work the way they were supposed to,
Speaker 1: and it really was just a giveaway to the rich,
Speaker 1: and the usual class warfare stuff all has to come
Speaker 1: out now, the usual Marxist tinged Marxist sounding rhetoric about
Speaker 1: giveaways for the rich and the Republicans of the Party
Speaker 1: of fat Cats. They've got all these liberal billionaires running
Speaker 1: around Silicon Valley run by liberals, Hollywood run by liberals,
Speaker 1: Wall Street run by liberals, but it's always the billionaire
Speaker 1: fat cats that are Republican that get all this attention,
Speaker 1: and people want to throw under the bus in one
Speaker 1: way or another. So what we have now is the
Speaker 1: New York Times writing this piece about FedEx. They use
Speaker 1: FedEx as a prime example of exactly how this didn't work,
Speaker 1: of how its tax bill, how FedEx cut its tax
Speaker 1: bill to zero. Now keep in mind that GE very
Speaker 1: famously went for a while and paid no federal income tax.
Speaker 1: But GE wasn't vilified for doing that because became a
Speaker 1: left wing company with very close ties, I believe under
Speaker 1: Immolt to President Obama. So GE was left and essentially
Speaker 1: had become largely a financial services company that happened to
Speaker 1: also make some stuff and have engineering and create lightbulbs
Speaker 1: and machinery and other things. But GE capital became a
Speaker 1: huge part of the business, which is why GE is
Speaker 1: now just in shambles as a great American a great
Speaker 1: American corporation. That's a story for another day. How FedEx
Speaker 1: cut its tax bill to zero dollars, the company, like
Speaker 1: much of corporate America, has not made good on its
Speaker 1: promised investment surge from President Trump's twenty seventeen tax cut.
Speaker 1: Now there's a reason that they're running with this story.
Speaker 1: They're using this as the pointy end of the spear,
Speaker 1: the thin end of the wedge for the narrative. The
Speaker 1: Democrats will need this primary that this economy right now
Speaker 1: that we are in that is low inflation, low unemployment,
Speaker 1: super high stock market, lots of economic growth. I mean
Speaker 1: that this is bad somehow there or not what it
Speaker 1: should be. If only you put Democrats in charge, If
Speaker 1: you just hand it over one fifth of the economy
Speaker 1: entirely to the Democrats central planners, to the socialists who
Speaker 1: now run the Democrat Party, if you will just be
Speaker 1: willing to do that, then we would all have an
Speaker 1: end to economic anxiety. Then we wouldn't have to worry
Speaker 1: about going bankrupt from health concerns. We'd all have better,
Speaker 1: we'd all have good housing and good jobs and goodness
Speaker 1: and good that. The more they talk about this, the
Speaker 1: more it reminds me of how in the Soviet Constitution,
Speaker 1: I mean this, in the Constitution of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: there were very explicit promises made about everyone having a job,
Speaker 1: everyone having food, everyone having clothing and a place to live,
Speaker 1: and even I believe, two weeks of paid vacation every year.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Soviet Constitution was like, it's going to
Speaker 1: be great. Everyone's gonna have everything they need. That was
Speaker 1: the promise. Oh, that's right, what is it? The bring
Speaker 1: us back here to my friend, Attorney General bar the
Speaker 1: deification of the state, the state and place of God.
Speaker 1: That's right. The Soviet Union is going to give you everything.
Speaker 1: It's a very large country, very rich and natural resources.
Speaker 1: Everyone's gonna work for the common good. How would this
Speaker 1: not work, they were saying, And we know not only
Speaker 1: did not work, but it led to tremendous evils and
Speaker 1: misery and slavery and despair, unimaginable levels of violence and
Speaker 1: oppression and torture and totalitarianism. But it was all supposed
Speaker 1: to be given everybody everything they need. Now, we are
Speaker 1: not the Soviet Union, and I'm not pretending we are.
Speaker 1: But when you start hearing people promise that everything will
Speaker 1: be provided for you and you have to do nothing
Speaker 1: in response. All you through is vote for them or
Speaker 1: put them in power, you should be very very skeptical.
Speaker 1: And I would argue you should be very concerned really
Speaker 1: that this is a sign that things are going to
Speaker 1: go quite awry. But so they use FedEx and they say, see,
Speaker 1: here's a company that isn't paying taxes the way that
Speaker 1: it's supposed to. That FedEx is another one of these
Speaker 1: corporations that promises to invest in American workers and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, and they haven't done the way. They haven't
Speaker 1: done things the way that we would want them to
Speaker 1: if we were running those corporations as Democrat government officials. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out FedEx isn't going to take this lying down.
Speaker 1: They put out a statement and it was a doozy
Speaker 1: from Frederick W. Smith, the chairman and CEO of FedEx Corporation.
Speaker 1: Here's what he put out as an official statement quote.
Speaker 1: The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect
Speaker 1: story on the front page of the Sunday, November seventeenth
Speaker 1: edition concerning FedEx and are billions of dollars of tax
Speaker 1: payments and billions of dollars of investments in the US economy.
Speaker 1: Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the
Speaker 1: fact that, unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero
Speaker 1: federal income tax in twenty seventeen on earnings of one
Speaker 1: hundred and eleven million dollars and only thirty million dollars
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, eighteen percent of their pre tax book income.
Speaker 1: Also in twenty eighteen, the New York Times cut their
Speaker 1: capital investments nearly and a half to fifty seven million,
Speaker 1: which equates to a rounding error when compared to the
Speaker 1: six billion dollars of capital that FedEx invested in the
Speaker 1: US economy during that same year. I hereby challenge A. G. Salzburger,
Speaker 1: publisher of The New York Times and the Business section editor,
Speaker 1: to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and
Speaker 1: the FedEx corporate Vice president of tax. The focus of
Speaker 1: the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative
Speaker 1: societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits
Speaker 1: to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class
Speaker 1: wage earners. I look forward to hearing promptly from mister
Speaker 1: Salzburger and scheduling this open event to bring further public
Speaker 1: awareness of the facts related to these important issues. Wow,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think it's a fantastic idea. Of course,
Speaker 1: the New York Times Salsburg, I mean, Salisburger is not
Speaker 1: an impressive guy. New York Times will never Not only
Speaker 1: would The New York Times not send their publisher who
Speaker 1: inherited the company, but side don't their publisher to do this.
Speaker 1: They won't even send any of their experts, any of
Speaker 1: their columnists, any of their editors for this debate. I
Speaker 1: can almost guarantee it. I mean, I'm guessing I'm looking
Speaker 1: into the future here, but you'll see they won't send anything.
Speaker 1: Would this would be quite worthwhile for the public to see,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it If The New York Times is going to
Speaker 1: call out FedEx on its front page for profiting and
Speaker 1: effectively lying about what it would do so that it
Speaker 1: would get the tax cuts, that it would do the
Speaker 1: stock buybacks to push up the stock price to help
Speaker 1: the executives and help the shareholders and not help the
Speaker 1: common man, and not put the investments in and class warfare. Baby,
Speaker 1: this is how they do it. If The New York
Speaker 1: Times is going to write that piece on its front page,
Speaker 1: then why shouldn't The New York Times be willing to
Speaker 1: meet the chairman of FedEx. I mean, this is not
Speaker 1: some random internet roll. The chairman of FedEx and CEO
Speaker 1: to a public debate on what's really gone on here.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why they are scared, and they are
Speaker 1: a right to be scared, because he would mop the
Speaker 1: floor with them. The New York Times wouldn't even exist
Speaker 1: if it was not for ideologically driven left wing billionaire
Speaker 1: like Carlos, Billionaires like Carlo Slim and other very connected individuals.
Speaker 1: The New York Times was going out of business, my friends.
Speaker 1: And the New York Times has a tremendous legacy advantage
Speaker 1: because it's been around for long enough that it's brand
Speaker 1: alone is worth a lot of money. But the people
Speaker 1: running it today are benefiting for what was done decades
Speaker 1: and decades before them. FedEx, on the other hand, shows
Speaker 1: us not just what the difference is between a company
Speaker 1: that is employing a lot of people, and that is
Speaker 1: operating as a free market entity. That's not essentially an
Speaker 1: artistic endeavor. The New York Times is for a lot
Speaker 1: of liberals a largely artistic endeavor. They support it the
Speaker 1: way you support your local philharmonic. FedEx has to deliver
Speaker 1: in every sense. And so here is a company that
Speaker 1: the left has always been a little bit uncomfortable with,
Speaker 1: doesn't really like because FedEx took what had been for
Speaker 1: a long time a government function. In fact, one of
Speaker 1: the explanations for why government needs certain power, certain authority,
Speaker 1: certain funding. Oh we need we need roads, we needed
Speaker 1: a post office. Well, let me ask you if you
Speaker 1: were going to send your aunt Ethel her brooch from
Speaker 1: the Revolutionary War era, and you have to get it
Speaker 1: there overnight before she goes and gives her big speech
Speaker 1: to the Rotary Club. Are you going to take aunt
Speaker 1: Ethel's brooch to the post office? Are you going to
Speaker 1: take it to Federal Express? I think we all know
Speaker 1: the answer. Federal Express. I'm not saying it's perfect, but
Speaker 1: it's pretty amazing what it's able to do. It's stunning
Speaker 1: that you can pick the time of delivery, and that
Speaker 1: I believe I actually looked at this once because I
Speaker 1: FedEx something to myself that was very important, valuable, and
Speaker 1: then I got a little worried. I think they have
Speaker 1: an either ninety seven or ninety nine percent successful delivery rate,
Speaker 1: meaning not that they lose things, meaning that they get
Speaker 1: it there when they say they're going to get it there.
Speaker 1: I think it's ninety seven or ninety nine percent of
Speaker 1: the time. That's pretty impressive considering what they do. And
Speaker 1: this is where the free market has shown you that
Speaker 1: it can do something that the government had been the
Speaker 1: sole provider of for a long time, and in fact
Speaker 1: do it much better than the government can, and create
Speaker 1: jobs in the process and productivity and give a service.
Speaker 1: So they so FedEx is a perfect target for them
Speaker 1: because they really don't like it, AH privatizing the postal
Speaker 1: service essentially, that's or giving a private alternative the postal service.
Speaker 1: And they say that they don't they haven't hired up,
Speaker 1: they haven't spent enough money the way they said they would. Well,
Speaker 1: let's gives a private company and it's now paying less
Speaker 1: than taxes. Keep in mind, corporations don't pay taxes. People
Speaker 1: pay taxes. So all that FedEx having a lower tax
Speaker 1: rate means that there's less money going to the government
Speaker 1: from FedEx, which means FedEx has more money to pay
Speaker 1: people and to invest in things than it would have otherwise.
Speaker 1: All those people that is paying, by the way, are
Speaker 1: paying taxes. So you tax the company, and then the
Speaker 1: people that get paid by the company they pay taxes
Speaker 1: to the government too. This is also where we get
Speaker 1: to the onerous tax burden. The Democrats not only defend
Speaker 1: today but want to expand dramatically because they think they'll
Speaker 1: be better stewards of the money that you have that
Speaker 1: you make, then you will be They know more than
Speaker 1: you do. I would love to see this debate between
Speaker 1: the chairman of FedEx and anybody from the New York Times,
Speaker 1: because what it would show is is that once again
Speaker 1: the central planners don't know what they're talking about, are
Speaker 1: rooted in faulty assumptions, and people that believe in and
Speaker 1: rely on free markets are the ones who are actually
Speaker 1: pushing us forward and doing good things for this country
Speaker 1: that everybody benefits from. And saying that the conditions on
Speaker 1: our board, the mass expansions attention camps qualifies as a
Speaker 1: concentration camp. Everybody thought it was nuts right, until we
Speaker 1: realize this week that Stephen Miller is a no joke,
Speaker 1: die hard whiten rationalist. This is what our policy has become,
Speaker 1: and in order for us to rectify and to begin
Speaker 1: to heal as a country, he has got to go.
Speaker 1: I feel duty bound to note that that Miller's defenders.
Speaker 1: I think Miller himself would say, I'm Jewish myself. I
Speaker 1: come from a Jewish family, and it's offensive for you
Speaker 1: to invoke that word, particularly as as regards someone who
Speaker 1: is Jewish. Well, I'm sure that's also the way in
Speaker 1: which he's weaponized his identity, right, Like you know, they say,
Speaker 1: and there's this, there's the color of your skin and
Speaker 1: the and the identity you are born with does not
Speaker 1: absolve you of moral wrong. The perst brick looking person
Speaker 1: to advance horrifically in humane immigration policy would be someone
Speaker 1: that looks like me, or someone that looks like someone
Speaker 1: in this audience, right, because that's what provides the cover
Speaker 1: for these incredibly damaging and dangerous policies. So I'm not
Speaker 1: here to weaponize my identity, and I don't think any
Speaker 1: public servant should weaponize their identity in order to advance
Speaker 1: white nationalist ideas period punto, I don't care who you are,
Speaker 1: that's who would be in charge if the Democrats had
Speaker 1: their way. But the people like Ocazio Cortez, people that
Speaker 1: share the thoughts of Okazio Cortez and Chris Hayes and MSNBC,
Speaker 1: just just remember that I just played. There's so much
Speaker 1: there's so much crazy and wrong and what she said
Speaker 1: that I don't even have time for it today. But
Speaker 1: just remember the people that want to tell FedEx how
Speaker 1: to run its business. It's the Ocazio Corteses of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, as if they have any idea team. I
Speaker 1: have not forgotten anything from the fight over Justice Kabanaw's nomination.
Speaker 1: It's seared into my brain. It was one of the
Speaker 1: most import for me, at least for my politics today,
Speaker 1: one of the most important periods, if of post nine
Speaker 1: to eleven American history, that I could point to to
Speaker 1: tell us why things are there, way are these days
Speaker 1: and where it's all going. And I particularly remember the
Speaker 1: media's role on all of this. I remember we were
Speaker 1: living in an alternate universe where the word credible all
Speaker 1: of a sudden meant the opposite of credible, where evidence
Speaker 1: was merely an accusation without any foundation or underpinning of
Speaker 1: fact to it whatsoever. And people were willing in the
Speaker 1: media to pretend to be or perhaps to just embrace
Speaker 1: the reality of being so stupid that it was almost
Speaker 1: almost unimaginable. I mean, they were willing to say, no, no,
Speaker 1: we in the mainstream media are too dumb to understand
Speaker 1: what's going on here, because then we can just move
Speaker 1: past the obviousness of what's really going on with particularly
Speaker 1: Christine Blasi Ford, doctor Ford. As we were all told
Speaker 1: we had to refer to Christine Blasi Ford. They would say,
Speaker 1: and I remember this, why would she lie? A This
Speaker 1: was a refrain, This was a talking point. Why would
Speaker 1: she lie? And people like me and you go back
Speaker 1: and listen to the shows from the summer of a
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen if you want, and it'll be quite clear.
Speaker 1: Why would she lie? Because she's going to be a
Speaker 1: hero to the left, because she deeply, personally, ideologically believes
Speaker 1: in abortion and the need to keep that legal for
Speaker 1: all nine months of her pregnancy in all fifty states.
Speaker 1: She got the opportunity to be a hero to left
Speaker 1: wing women, to boomer feminists for all eternity, to get book,
Speaker 1: deals and speeches, and why would she lie? She had
Speaker 1: every incentive to lie under the circumstances of who she
Speaker 1: was and what was going on then, and the media
Speaker 1: pretended like they couldn't figure that out, like we wouldn't
Speaker 1: all know right away. We didn't know at the time
Speaker 1: that she would be a share a heroine part of me,
Speaker 1: not a hero heroin to the left, buck, how did
Speaker 1: you know? Everybody knew, but the media was all over.
Speaker 1: She has no reason to lie, That's what they're all saying. Again,
Speaker 1: Just like when Pelosi talks this about impeachment proceeding, they
Speaker 1: speak to us as though they really believe we are
Speaker 1: all idiots. And I don't know if they're so dumb
Speaker 1: they believe that, or I just I don't know what
Speaker 1: we're how we're supposed to react. I hope the American
Speaker 1: people are not so stupid as to listen to Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: But clearly I might give us too much credit. Here's
Speaker 1: doctor Christine blasi Ford accepting the ACLUS Current Age Award
Speaker 1: play twenty one. It's really great when women step up
Speaker 1: for other women, and it's really great when men show
Speaker 1: up for women, cheering celebrating her And remember, they're not
Speaker 1: just celebrating her, They're celebrating her specifically because she was
Speaker 1: part of the ugliest smear campaign I have ever seen
Speaker 1: in American politics, the nastiest, most underhanded, most dishonest thing
Speaker 1: I have ever seen in my adult life go on
Speaker 1: in American politics. It was It still makes me want
Speaker 1: to throw up to this day, accusing someone of attempted
Speaker 1: really what was attempted rape? In her telling of the
Speaker 1: story in front of tens of millions of Americans with
Speaker 1: his wife and children watching, all of his friends, all
Speaker 1: of his colleagues, everybody he knew, and it was all
Speaker 1: a lie. It was all a lie. How could you
Speaker 1: do that to somebody bearing false witness in that way?
Speaker 1: I don't know how she sleeps at night, except maybe
Speaker 1: she's so looney that she believes what she said. That
Speaker 1: is possible. I've always thought that was possible. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, she wasn't knowingly lying, but the story none
Speaker 1: the less was a lie. But they are celebrating her
Speaker 1: specifically for that, for the ritualized, televised torture and humiliation
Speaker 1: session of a very good, very decent, and very impressive man.
Speaker 1: But there is and has been for a long time.
Speaker 1: A bitterness and a vitriol that is at the heart
Speaker 1: of the leftist feminist movement. There is a kind of
Speaker 1: man hatred that emanates from it. That's there's no question
Speaker 1: about it. A desire to bring men who are viewed
Speaker 1: as the white heterosexual, normative, white heterosexual patriarchal figures members
Speaker 1: of the patriarchy, to bring them low, to destroy them,
Speaker 1: to humiliate and degrade them. They deserve it. You see
Speaker 1: Christine Blasi Forward getting awards from people now who could
Speaker 1: have seen this coming, anybody who wasn't an idiot. I
Speaker 1: saw it coming, You saw it coming. None of this
Speaker 1: is a surprise, my friends, not in the least, but
Speaker 1: the media was willing to pretend that it would be.
Speaker 1: And that tells you so much about who they are
Speaker 1: and what they really stand for. Appalling stuff. I was
Speaker 1: speaking of feminism. Charlie's Angels has had a remake now,
Speaker 1: a remake that is staff with actresses, and one of
Speaker 1: them is from the Twilight movie. And then I don't
Speaker 1: know what the which I don't think I saw that.
Speaker 1: Maybe I saw the first one, and the others I
Speaker 1: have not. The others, I don't know who they are,
Speaker 1: but they Elizabeth Banks remade this movie. She's a pretty
Speaker 1: well known actress for the the a cappella movies that
Speaker 1: she made, Pitch Perfect and Show. She made those movies.
Speaker 1: Those movies did very well. But then they try to
Speaker 1: do a remake of Charlie's Angels, which why even would
Speaker 1: think that that would be? You know, this is what
Speaker 1: we have to spend what one hundred million dollars on
Speaker 1: or fifty million dollars or whatever it is. And you
Speaker 1: just look at this and you look at the script,
Speaker 1: and that a feminist, a feminist twist on Charlie's Angels,
Speaker 1: which is really a show about or a show slash
Speaker 1: movie about very very beautiful women doing daring things. But
Speaker 1: really the fact that they're all very very beautiful is
Speaker 1: really important in this whole process. So there's an inherent
Speaker 1: objectification of women. You would think that would be as
Speaker 1: a result of this, and which is of course the
Speaker 1: norm in Hollywood. They pretend that it's not, but still,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want, you know, beautiful women still
Speaker 1: sell tickets to things. I mean, beautiful women are still
Speaker 1: the reason a lot of people want to go see things.
Speaker 1: And we can say, oh, that's superficial, but there are
Speaker 1: some biological realities that we all still have to live with,
Speaker 1: at least for the time being, until they try to
Speaker 1: rewrite all the biological realities on the left. No person
Speaker 1: would really think that this was a good idea for
Speaker 1: a movie, right, I mean, this is just you hear
Speaker 1: about this and you say, oh, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: the feminist Ghostbusters that they made. Oh let's have a
Speaker 1: Ghostbusters but with all women, and it's sort of a
Speaker 1: girl a girl power take on Ghostbusters. It was the
Speaker 1: worst movie. I've watched about fifteen minutes of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you could argue it might have been the
Speaker 1: worst movie ever made. That's a tough for its budget
Speaker 1: and expectations. You have to make that relative, right, I
Speaker 1: mean LEPrecon five, LEPrecon in the Hood was probably a
Speaker 1: worst movie. I did watch that movie, much to my
Speaker 1: everlasting shame, as well as LEPrecon in Space. There was
Speaker 1: a LEPrecon in Space movie. They made a lot of
Speaker 1: those LEPrecon movies. I'm the LEPrecon. I could still you know,
Speaker 1: I'm part Irish, so I could still do the I'm
Speaker 1: the Lepreca. I remember when Mike Myers did his whole
Speaker 1: thing in Wayne's World two with the flashlight in his face.
Speaker 1: He's like, I'm the Leprecai by the flashlight. It was
Speaker 1: kind of scary actually, because I'm a LEPrecon guy. Fun fact,
Speaker 1: that's actually Warwick Davis, who played the lead character in
Speaker 1: the movie Willow, which was really a cheap rip off
Speaker 1: of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which I know
Speaker 1: people say, oh, Willow was its own book and stuff,
Speaker 1: but I mean, come on, it's kind of It's kind
Speaker 1: of like poor man's Lord of the Rings. But yeah,
Speaker 1: Warwick Davis was in that movie, and then he played
Speaker 1: the Leprecons later on, or played the LEPrecon I should
Speaker 1: say later on. But nobody really thinks that Charlie Danel
Speaker 1: is gonna be a good movie, right. I mean, you
Speaker 1: ask a normal person, just like you gotta, you know,
Speaker 1: you ask a normal person. Do you think that is
Speaker 1: gonna be? No? It made like eight million dollars domestically.
Speaker 1: It's bombing in China, it's bombing in the United States.
Speaker 1: A terrible movie. What do you think the director? And
Speaker 1: now the woke media journals out there are saying, is
Speaker 1: the reason for this tremendous flop that's going to cost
Speaker 1: a studio millions and millions and millions of dollars just
Speaker 1: up in smoke. What do you think the reason that
Speaker 1: it was a bad idea that people don't want to
Speaker 1: watch a feminist remake of Charlie's Angels, That Charlie's Angels
Speaker 1: really is rooted in what would be considered I think patriarchal,
Speaker 1: patriarchal notions of women in beauty and everything goes. So
Speaker 1: a girl powered Charlie's Angels is probably gonna flop. And
Speaker 1: what do you think that's? Oh, that's sexism, sexism. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's why it's not doing well. It's a movie which
Speaker 1: I would note is the same thing they said about
Speaker 1: the horrifically bad Ghostbusters movie, which is almost worth watching
Speaker 1: because you think, to yourself, wow, are there different standards
Speaker 1: for a lot of female comedians than male comedians? As
Speaker 1: in the female comedians cast in that movie. Are they
Speaker 1: able to be famous in their profession and rich without
Speaker 1: actually being any good at what they do? It's a
Speaker 1: fair question to ask if you see that movie, say,
Speaker 1: do female comedians have to even be funny in the
Speaker 1: current environment or they just have to be female and
Speaker 1: comedians and take the right political stances. Sometimes that movie
Speaker 1: was so unfunny that it was painful. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to see Charlie's Angels. I didn't even see the last one,
Speaker 1: which had Cameron Diaz back in her heyday. Although really
Speaker 1: Cameron Diaz's best role was as the romantic lead in
Speaker 1: the movie The Mask with Jim Carrey. What happened to
Speaker 1: Jim Carrey? That guy got super unfunny and really annoying
Speaker 1: very fast, didn't he as he got older? Cameron Diaz
Speaker 1: and Lucy lou And I'm forgetting who the third one was.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's Drew Barrymore. It's kind of a kind of
Speaker 1: surprise anyway. Sexism is the reason that this movie is bombing. See,
Speaker 1: this is the problem we have with with wokeness in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: They had these built in excuses, so even when the
Speaker 1: market speaks, they will ignore it. Even when the market
Speaker 1: tells them. People just don't want to see this movie,
Speaker 1: which is completely unsurprising. There's some rationalization for why it
Speaker 1: has done so poorly. One the one the only way
Speaker 1: that you can understand how Hollywood makes such bad movies
Speaker 1: and take such huge financial risks behind them is that
Speaker 1: they're so there is such an ideological tilt to the
Speaker 1: left that it blinds them that they are unable to
Speaker 1: be objective about these things sometimes and they assume that
Speaker 1: there must be a much broader support for these ideas
Speaker 1: as shown to us through film, then there will be,
Speaker 1: and that's why they're willing to risk so much money
Speaker 1: on what are just obviously bad ideas. But that again,
Speaker 1: in this piece I read about it, they said that
Speaker 1: the Jumanji remake made a lot of money, So I
Speaker 1: guess maybe they figure they just also roll the dice
Speaker 1: with remakes sometimes on these franchises and people will just
Speaker 1: go see it if they want to go see it,
Speaker 1: And I don't know, I have to. There's a little
Speaker 1: bit of I get pulled in the is this all
Speaker 1: just about social justice and wokeness that they make these
Speaker 1: bad decisions or they just Hollywood executives are risk averse
Speaker 1: and lazy And it could be a combination of both.
Speaker 1: Oh and speaking of using sexism as a response as
Speaker 1: a justification for failure in the realm of whether it's
Speaker 1: art or politics, as we know, I talked to about
Speaker 1: it last week, Hillary Clinton, who still claims that there
Speaker 1: was some sexism at work with not winning the presidency,
Speaker 1: not her terribleness as a candidate, utter lack of likability,
Speaker 1: utter lack of authenticity. That's not the reason that Chet
Speaker 1: went the presidency. No, it's because everyone is just so sexist.
Speaker 1: Bill Maher had this to say about Hillary play club
Speaker 1: bait please. This week, Hillary Clinton said she did you
Speaker 1: know she got more votes? Okay? Anybody else? Well, someone
Speaker 1: needs to put some XANX in her hot sauce, because listen,
Speaker 1: here's your quote. She said, I say never never, never
Speaker 1: say never. I will certainly tell you I'm under enormous
Speaker 1: pressure from many, many people to think about it. Yes,
Speaker 1: those are called Trump supporters. I first of all, I
Speaker 1: noticed I don't even know who was on the panel there.
Speaker 1: I couldn't tell from the voice. But that this is
Speaker 1: another story we talked before about Trump is an impostor.
Speaker 1: Here's somebody who's on a political show who assumes a
Speaker 1: political expert saying that Hillary one. They'll say this openly,
Speaker 1: they'll say that Hillary one. And we're supposed to just
Speaker 1: accept us. Oh we have oh, Stacy Abrams somebody else
Speaker 1: who just pretends that the current governor of Georgia is
Speaker 1: an impostor that that she really won. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, the system is right. Would you play a
Speaker 1: clip twenty please? Electoral college is racist and classist. We
Speaker 1: have to remember the electoral college was not designed because
Speaker 1: people were worried about Idaho not having enough volks. We
Speaker 1: didn't know about Idaho. What we did know we didn't.
Speaker 1: But what we did know was that in the South.
Speaker 1: The populations in the South had equal or roughly equal
Speaker 1: populations to the North. However, because black people were not
Speaker 1: considered human or citizens, they wanted their bodies to count
Speaker 1: for the purposes of the population count, but not their humanity,
Speaker 1: and the electoral college was designed to give Southern states
Speaker 1: the ability to count the bodies of slaves, but not
Speaker 1: have to allow them to cast votes, and thus the
Speaker 1: electoral college was born as a compromise. The other challenge
Speaker 1: was in the North, a lot of them didn't want
Speaker 1: immigrants making decisions, and they didn't believe that immigrants and
Speaker 1: that those who are not considered well educated should be
Speaker 1: making decisions about who the executive of our nation should be.
Speaker 1: So it was a combination of racism and classism. Both
Speaker 1: of those things should be flung to the far regions
Speaker 1: of history and the electoral college needs to go. So
Speaker 1: stay Abrams has essentially no understanding of the system of
Speaker 1: federalism that we have in this country and the states
Speaker 1: and the way that the states play into our system
Speaker 1: of God. I mean, let's just and she was going
Speaker 1: to be the governor of a state, and she thinks
Speaker 1: she won that election. But let's just put all that
Speaker 1: aside for a moment. Classism, sexism, racism, Democrats lose. Pick
Speaker 1: one of those three. That's the reason Hillary Clinton loses,
Speaker 1: sexism or Russia Trump chief, but Stacey Abrahams loses he
Speaker 1: cheated and also sexism, racism, etc. Etc. Over time, these
Speaker 1: bad faith criticisms have an impact. People start to think, well,
Speaker 1: maybe I guess there could be some truth to this.
Speaker 1: Is that really what's going on. Let's certainly just back
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton if I can for a moment. I
Speaker 1: disagree with mister Bill Maher here that the people who
Speaker 1: want Hillary to run are Republicans. I think there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats who want Hillary to run because
Speaker 1: they say Trump's an impostor, they say he didn't really
Speaker 1: win the election. How can you set right what wrong
Speaker 1: was done in twenty sixteen better than having the rightful,
Speaker 1: quote unquote President of the United States from twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: finally take her place in the Oval office. The best
Speaker 1: repudiation of Trump that they could really have. I think
Speaker 1: even more so if you were just talking about this,
Speaker 1: forget about what is possible and just talk about what
Speaker 1: would be the ultimate victory for the left. Hillary beating
Speaker 1: Trump would be the thing that would make them happier
Speaker 1: than I think anything else. So I don't discount what
Speaker 1: she says here, even though she is kind of crazy.
Speaker 1: I don't discount that there are people telling her run,
Speaker 1: and I don't think there are Republicans. I think that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of very powerful Democrats who want
Speaker 1: her to get back in It was a convenient place
Speaker 1: to stay there. I mean, I mean, I've gone through
Speaker 1: this in my mind so many times. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight
Speaker 1: that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing
Speaker 1: to do, but at a time I felt it was
Speaker 1: that it was the honorable and right thing to do.
Speaker 1: And I admit fully that that that my judgment was
Speaker 1: probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable. But
Speaker 1: that's just the way it is. Wow, Prince Andrew of
Speaker 1: the Royal family, which I'm one of these people who
Speaker 1: says modern, industrialized and rule of law countries shouldn't have
Speaker 1: royal families, you know, I don't. I don't understand why
Speaker 1: this is complicated, but it is for some people. Prince Andrew,
Speaker 1: second son of Queen Elizabeth, of the Royal family here
Speaker 1: talking about why is it that he not only hung
Speaker 1: out with Epstein and was officially accused of having sex
Speaker 1: with a girl who was being sex trafficked by the
Speaker 1: girl on a sworn AFFI David now a woman, of course,
Speaker 1: but was a girl at the time, and why did
Speaker 1: he not? So those allegations are already out there. And
Speaker 1: there is a photo which I've mentioned to you, of
Speaker 1: Andrew holding Virginia Giffrey, I believe is how you say
Speaker 1: her name now? I think it was I forget her
Speaker 1: name from before she was married, but when she was
Speaker 1: fourteen or fifteen years old, and he's holding her around
Speaker 1: the waist very closely. And this is not his daughter,
Speaker 1: this is not a relative. What is going on here?
Speaker 1: The photo itself is suspicious, to say the least suspicious.
Speaker 1: He's a middle aged guy at the time. You know,
Speaker 1: he's not He's not twenty hanging out with a with
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old. It's not like, oh, maybe they
Speaker 1: were high school friends or peers or something. Oh no,
Speaker 1: he's like fifty and she's fourteen. So you just their
Speaker 1: mere presence today, I'm not even talking about having any relations.
Speaker 1: Just their mere presence together is strange, right, as suspicious.
Speaker 1: So he is now trying to explain in this BBC interview,
Speaker 1: which has been pretty much by every analysis I've read.
Speaker 1: I've seen some clips of it, didn't watch the whole things.
Speaker 1: I don't think I really have to, because I get
Speaker 1: it what's going on with this guy. They've called it
Speaker 1: nuclear explosion level bad, and he makes claims in it
Speaker 1: that are just not credible to people watching. Like he says,
Speaker 1: first of all, that his honor led him to go
Speaker 1: and break off his friendship with Epstein over the course
Speaker 1: of a few days, staying at his home here in
Speaker 1: New York City, after Epstein had already been convicted of
Speaker 1: sex crimes involving underage girls. You don't think, You don't
Speaker 1: think a phone call or a text message can get
Speaker 1: that one done. You gotta go spend a few days
Speaker 1: at his house when he's a convicted sex offender and
Speaker 1: you are not just some guy, you are part of
Speaker 1: the royal family for whatever that means. Does anyone cared
Speaker 1: to explain that one? And he wouldn't care to have
Speaker 1: a h M. That's a strange claim for our British
Speaker 1: royal to make. And then he went on to say
Speaker 1: that none of this even sounds like him, that he
Speaker 1: it's not like him to go partying and be around,
Speaker 1: you know, young women in this way. And he made
Speaker 1: these claims in his interview, and then people started producing
Speaker 1: photos of him or no, it does seem like he
Speaker 1: likes to be around attractive women and women who are
Speaker 1: considerably younger than So why lie about that, not even
Speaker 1: talking about underage girls or relations sexual relations with them
Speaker 1: in violation of law just in general? Why hold yourself
Speaker 1: up as somebody that you are not. Why would you
Speaker 1: use this? This is his come clean moment, isn't it?
Speaker 1: This is his This is the time in which you
Speaker 1: would want to be as as honest as possible if
Speaker 1: honesty was in your favor. But I think we all
Speaker 1: know that this did not look good for him, perhaps
Speaker 1: because honesty is not in his favor Jeffrey Epstein, he admits,
Speaker 1: was it's a bad idea that he was friends with him. Well,
Speaker 1: he was quite close with him. This guy also shows
Speaker 1: us that aristocracies are not sending us their best. You
Speaker 1: could say that this guy is deeply unimpressive and that
Speaker 1: I just I can't imagine anyone coming away from this
Speaker 1: thinking anything other than this was a disaster for him,
Speaker 1: a disaster for him because the truth is not on
Speaker 1: his side. And then it brings me to something else here.
Speaker 1: And I'm just going to continue to bring this up
Speaker 1: as I can, because you know, I don't have the
Speaker 1: time and the resources to you know, I'm not a
Speaker 1: I'm not running a major newsroom with a thousand reporters
Speaker 1: or something, so I can't assign anyone to do this.
Speaker 1: But I just refuse to believe the following. Rather, let
Speaker 1: me walk you through my thinking and then I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what I refused to believe. There's another report out
Speaker 1: today that Epstein had set up peepole cameras to catch
Speaker 1: people in intimate moments at his various super high end properties,
Speaker 1: where we know for a fact there was the trafficking
Speaker 1: of underage girls as sex slaves. So he was taking
Speaker 1: video of people. He had set this up. It was elaborate.
Speaker 1: Why is it that we haven't heard any new names
Speaker 1: of any individuals who were involved in this? And here's
Speaker 1: another question, are we really to believe that Epstein had
Speaker 1: set up a very elaborate blackmail operation? There are substantial
Speaker 1: reporting another report today in the New York Post about this,
Speaker 1: one of the women that he was trafficking, saying, look,
Speaker 1: he was, he had cameras and all these in all
Speaker 1: these places. Why have we found out nothing? But why
Speaker 1: is there no evidence? Did he not Was he sending
Speaker 1: up cameras and wasn't record anything? Because that would seem
Speaker 1: completely counterintuitive. I don't believe that for a second. That
Speaker 1: makes no sense. So he was recording people? Is there
Speaker 1: evidence of people being recorded? Have we seen any of this?
Speaker 1: So we have no additional names from the ones that
Speaker 1: have already been named, and we have no presentation or
Speaker 1: no reporting law from law enforcement side of any evidence
Speaker 1: that they have come across that shows people engaged in
Speaker 1: in illicit acts with underaged girls, which would seem to
Speaker 1: be the whole purpose of Epstein's blackmail network in the
Speaker 1: first place. At what point does this start to feel
Speaker 1: like something not credible is going on here in the
Speaker 1: process of getting the answers. It didn't get me started
Speaker 1: on like the hyoid bone, And at what point is it?
Speaker 1: Does it seem like maybe nobody really wants to get
Speaker 1: these answers. We just had Prince Andrew give his whole Hey,
Speaker 1: I didn't do anything wrong. Okay, well he didn't convince
Speaker 1: He certainly didn't convince me with the interview. Based on
Speaker 1: what I've read from the transcript and the clips that
Speaker 1: I've seen, some very strange things this guy said. Does
Speaker 1: anyone want to dig into this story a bit more? Well,
Speaker 1: I really do believe that some of the people who
Speaker 1: are are implicated, and we know one of them was
Speaker 1: President of the United States for eight years and a Democrat. Okay,
Speaker 1: people that are implicated as at least being very close
Speaker 1: to Epstein and should have known about Epstein. I think
Speaker 1: that there's just a fear even among people. Maybe they
Speaker 1: haven't maybe some journalists haven't found this stuff yet, but
Speaker 1: they don't even really want to find it because of
Speaker 1: what it would mean, what it would mean for people
Speaker 1: that they perhaps have idolized or I thought were necessary
Speaker 1: for a cause or necessary for political victory. Keep in
Speaker 1: mind that, yeah, I mean, Hillary Clinton is probably not
Speaker 1: going to run for president again, but the Clinton name
Speaker 1: is still very much a political dynasty, and Chelsea Clinton
Speaker 1: is I'm the same guy who told you Blasi Ford
Speaker 1: was going to be getting awards and stuff, and here
Speaker 1: we are. Chelsea Clinton is going to run for office
Speaker 1: and she's probably going to win, not necessarily the presidency,
Speaker 1: but she'll be a senator from New York. She just
Speaker 1: pick a state to be senator from that blue state,
Speaker 1: no problem. She's boring, she's unimpressive, never had to actually
Speaker 1: have a real job in her life, but she will be.
Speaker 1: So there's a desire, a recognition among journalists, recognition among
Speaker 1: the institutional left to protect the Clinton name. Could that
Speaker 1: be factoring into why we don't get any more information
Speaker 1: about the Epstein situation. That certainly seems plausible too. We
Speaker 1: know he's on him, not just pulling him in out
Speaker 1: of nowhere. We know he was on the plane a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of times. We know the he was hanging
Speaker 1: out there were friends Epstein and Bill Clinton. Is that
Speaker 1: why because there's just there's such a lack of it
Speaker 1: seems of interest from the mainstream media from these huge
Speaker 1: news organizations with tremendous resources to get answers here. Everything
Speaker 1: we've been told, this guy committed suicide in prison under
Speaker 1: shady circumstances. That was a huge black eye for the
Speaker 1: Bureau of Prisons at a minimum, I mean, depending on
Speaker 1: I who we talked to. Also, there's other stuff that
Speaker 1: maybe was involved here, perhaps Epstein was I've never thought
Speaker 1: that he was killed. I do think that there is
Speaker 1: a plausible way to get to maybe this guy was
Speaker 1: allowed to kill himself, so to speak. There's plenty of
Speaker 1: evidence you could point to. It says Okay, Well, he's
Speaker 1: the first person in the history of the Manhattan Correctional
Speaker 1: Facility in New York that was able to successfull commit
Speaker 1: suicide of these circumstances. It's been around for forty years, folks.
Speaker 1: First one, there's people that right now, people are held
Speaker 1: every day. First guy just happened to be this guy.
Speaker 1: It's a big coincidence, a lot of big coincidence. We're
Speaker 1: being asked. I'm telling you they didn't touch the story
Speaker 1: for how many years initially, So it would really be
Speaker 1: the media's willingness to just not pay any attention to
Speaker 1: this whole situation would be in keeping with what they've
Speaker 1: done in the past. Something is up here. I have ideas,
Speaker 1: I do not have proof, but there's something going on.
Speaker 1: Continue to pay attention to this. You're gonna have to
Speaker 1: read a little bit between the between the lines. You
Speaker 1: have to pay attention to the subtleties and the subtext
Speaker 1: because there are a lot of very powerful people who
Speaker 1: do not want to get to the bottom of what
Speaker 1: was really going on here. We know ABC News was
Speaker 1: willing to skip past this because of access to the
Speaker 1: royal family. Now we see one of these royal family guys.
Speaker 1: How do you think ABC News should feel about this? Hey,
Speaker 1: Team Bucket, it's time for roll Call Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: Flash buck Sexton or Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com and also,
Speaker 1: of course, please spread the word about Channel two forty
Speaker 1: eight on Pluto TV, a free app you can download.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to this podcast or this as a
Speaker 1: radio show, you can watch what's going on here in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Huts. See the clips that I talk about.
Speaker 1: See me and producer Mark Eli's hear him. You can't
Speaker 1: really see him, you have We're working on that. I'm
Speaker 1: doing our thing here in the Freedom Hunt Channel two
Speaker 1: forty eight, the first on Pluto TV. And also I'm
Speaker 1: getting notes from people saying that someone told them about
Speaker 1: the podcast and they now listen to it and it's
Speaker 1: their favorite podcast. Let's keep that going, shall we? Please?
Speaker 1: Please make that happen. Tell somebody about the show this week.
Speaker 1: It is a huge compliment and help to us here
Speaker 1: in the show we put out every day. Tell them
Speaker 1: they can listen to the podcast anytime they want iTunes, iHeartRadio, app,
Speaker 1: you name it, wherever you listen to podcasts The Buck
Speaker 1: Section Show. All right, staycy. I read the daily up
Speaker 1: first email from Pluto TV. There were some spelling ears.
Speaker 1: Thanks and shield side all right, Stacy, I'll make sure
Speaker 1: that we we get some more proofreading. Go in there.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, John, hold on a second. Whoa, John,
Speaker 1: This is like a thousand words, so I can't read
Speaker 1: this on air right now, but I will read it
Speaker 1: when I can. Adam Buck disagree on Amelio Estevez and
Speaker 1: his best movie. I would put Men at Work in
Speaker 1: the top spot. Shields High. Adam, I appreciate your opinion
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it is wrong. Young Guns is
Speaker 1: clearly better than Men at Work. I don't. I would
Speaker 1: put this out of the realm of opinion and into
Speaker 1: the realm of fact. Facts. First, my friend, I don't
Speaker 1: even remember I saw Men at Work. I don't even remember.
Speaker 1: It isn't like garbage men who come upon some plot
Speaker 1: to get rid of, like toxic waste or something. Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: did you see it? No? Well, isn't his best movie, well,
Speaker 1: other than The Mighty Ducks, Right, I mean Breakfast Club.
Speaker 1: I was willing, I was getting ready to make fun
Speaker 1: of your addition into this and actually, and now I
Speaker 1: have to respect that the Breakfast Club might in fact
Speaker 1: be I mean, it's number two behind the Mighty Ducks trilogy.
Speaker 1: But right, well, we've already established that you're wrong the
Speaker 1: Mighty Ducks. But I'm just trying. You've never even seen it,
Speaker 1: so you can't call me wrong on that, all right,
Speaker 1: that's technically true? Yeah, but yeah, no, I think The
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club would have to be in the in the
Speaker 1: very top Young Guns a very entertaining movie though. But
Speaker 1: Men at Work is also the name of it is
Speaker 1: I think an Australian band. Who could it be knocking
Speaker 1: at my door? Yeah? It sounds like a band, right,
Speaker 1: are they Australian or am I thinking of like, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know. No, they're not Australian. That's
Speaker 1: tough to tell. Those Brits, those Aussies when they sing,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the fancy accent disappears. Oh when
Speaker 1: you sing, you actually sound like an American. Isn't that
Speaker 1: crazy how that happens like that? It's very rare that
Speaker 1: singers have an accent. No, they don't. You know, when
Speaker 1: you sing sound because this is the way. If you're
Speaker 1: going to make the sounds that we make with our mouths,
Speaker 1: you speak American. I'm trying to say, we do it
Speaker 1: the right way. Yeah. Well, we just told like this
Speaker 1: all the time because it sounds so cool. It does
Speaker 1: sound cool. You can't deny that it sounds cool. I know.
Speaker 1: It's such a huge advantage. People in this business who
Speaker 1: were like, oh, I've got a British accent, so now
Speaker 1: go on television never will think would USA is so small?
Speaker 1: Does it work the same way the other way around?
Speaker 1: If we go to London with an American accent, Nope,
Speaker 1: they make fun of us. They're like, hey, my name
Speaker 1: is Bob and I'm from Chicago. That's how they always
Speaker 1: do American accents in the UK. It's totally true. They
Speaker 1: think we all sound like that kind of like a
Speaker 1: almost like a Midwestern meets New York accent. Yes, like
Speaker 1: with their mouths really tight and talking like this. Because
Speaker 1: I have a lot of British friends, so I know
Speaker 1: that's what they do. They make fun of us. Whatever.
Speaker 1: Seventeen seventy six, boom, all, I gotta say, let's see
Speaker 1: Richard wrights buck. So Virginia is going to pass the
Speaker 1: Equal Rights Amendment, which expired something like thirty years ago,
Speaker 1: but the Dems say they're going to change the deadline,
Speaker 1: so there is no deadline. How is the DEM's gonna
Speaker 1: say that states can't resend their amendment as four states have,
Speaker 1: but it's gonna take the ra ignoring or take up
Speaker 1: the ear ignoring the seven year Richard, I don't know what.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what this is, man, I got
Speaker 1: to look this up. I'm out up on the Equal
Speaker 1: Rights Amendment and Virginia stuff. So I'm sorry, I got
Speaker 1: nothing for for once, I have nothing to really add
Speaker 1: into the scenario here. Um Michael says, ask producer Mark
Speaker 1: about the movie slap Shot. I've never even heard of
Speaker 1: this movie. You've never seen slap Shot. No, it's the
Speaker 1: best hockey movie other than The Mighty Ducks ever made.
Speaker 1: Is it funny or is it it's hilarious? Yeah? Who's
Speaker 1: in it? The Handsome Burton? No no, it's the Handsome Brothers,
Speaker 1: the kids from Umbop? No, no no, no, the Handsome Brothers
Speaker 1: are the main characters. I don't think that's that's their
Speaker 1: actual names in real life. Oh yeah, okay, I was like,
Speaker 1: it's based on a minor league hockey team. But it
Speaker 1: is hilarious because I would argue that the song Umbop
Speaker 1: is the most annoying song that has ever been a
Speaker 1: successful song in America, even more annoying than the Venga Boys,
Speaker 1: The Venga Bus Is Coming and the Macarena. I think
Speaker 1: I think Umbop might be the mos some annoying song
Speaker 1: ever recorded in America. I like him, Bup. I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say to you right now. Well,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with him? Bop? I just you know, folks,
Speaker 1: he's under a lot of pressure. He's getting a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks, so we're just gonna let him. He's gonna
Speaker 1: let him have it. Have you ever heard of pregnancy brain.
Speaker 1: I have white wedding brain, A new thing that there,
Speaker 1: there we go. He's saying, a team that's gonna be
Speaker 1: it for the show today. I hope you've enjoyed it
Speaker 1: as much as we've enjoyed doing it. I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow and every day this week. Oh that's right,
Speaker 1: Shields high,