Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. It's finally done. The
Speaker 1: Muller report has been handed in Breaking news as we
Speaker 1: go on air. Muller's probe is finished, my friends, What
Speaker 1: does that report contain? Will we find out and will
Speaker 1: there be accountability for the lies, lies and more lies
Speaker 1: that the Democrats and their media allies have told about
Speaker 1: this whole fiasco. That and more coming up on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, He's a great guy. Sexton. No,
Speaker 1: we have confirmed that a letter was sent to the
Speaker 1: chairman and ranking members of the Senate and House Judiciary
Speaker 1: committees notifying them that the Special Counsel Robert Muller investigation
Speaker 1: was completed. Let me just read for a second from
Speaker 1: that text. It says, quote Special Counsel Robert Mueller the
Speaker 1: third has concluded his investigation of Russian interference. But this
Speaker 1: is the important part. Well, Attorney General William Barr says,
Speaker 1: quote he may be in a position to ad buyse
Speaker 1: you the committees of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as
Speaker 1: soon as this weekend. So this is the first time
Speaker 1: that we've had an indication that the Attorney General may
Speaker 1: be able to move very quickly in terms of releasing
Speaker 1: some information and the findings to Congress. What's not in
Speaker 1: the letter so far that we've seen is a timetable
Speaker 1: for a public release. Welcome to the buck Sex then
Speaker 1: show quite a Friday breaking news situation here, folks. The
Speaker 1: Mueller report has done no more indictments. Oh oh, you
Speaker 1: mean they're not going to prosecute the president. You mean
Speaker 1: that Hillary's not really going to get to be president
Speaker 1: all of a sudden after all. Oh No, we've known
Speaker 1: this day would come, and it is here, and damn
Speaker 1: it feels good to be right team we've been. Just
Speaker 1: take a moment, take a little moment, you know, do
Speaker 1: a little little chin wagging and stretch stretch out a
Speaker 1: little bit, you know, just take a little strut around
Speaker 1: the office or around the kitchen or wherever you are,
Speaker 1: and just just remember, we knew it. We knew it.
Speaker 1: The delusional left did not know it. They thought that
Speaker 1: Trump was finished and Mueller's on him, and Mueller's I mean,
Speaker 1: people built careers for themselves around this lie. People became
Speaker 1: a household names around this nonsense. And no new indictment.
Speaker 1: You know what that means. That means that there was
Speaker 1: no collusion, folks, there was no collusion. It's not there,
Speaker 1: it's not real, it's not a thing. And now you
Speaker 1: will see so many people running for cover for a
Speaker 1: few days, not for long, because there will unfortunately be
Speaker 1: no real media accountability for all the frauds, all the
Speaker 1: peddlers of lies and fiction and smears meant to take
Speaker 1: down Trump and just to feed the malignant psychosis of
Speaker 1: the far left in this country that now runs the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, that is the Democrat Party. And do you
Speaker 1: think that anyone will will apologize for what they've done
Speaker 1: or say that they were wrong about Trump and they
Speaker 1: got caught up in the moment. And no, this was
Speaker 1: a mass hysteria, a mass hysteria that's swept tens of
Speaker 1: millions of people into it and has come at a
Speaker 1: tremendous cost to the country, to the Trump administration's ability
Speaker 1: to conduct its business, to govern well, to enact the agenda.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, I also say this with with
Speaker 1: rage and with sadness. I mean, yes, there's relief and
Speaker 1: there's happiness. We were right and it's done. So just
Speaker 1: take a moment. Team, it's been two years in coming.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about this for two frigging years, and
Speaker 1: now it's over. No more. Muller. Who who's the next
Speaker 1: person he's going to and died? Oh is he? What
Speaker 1: does he have on Trump? Oh? What? The Russians? This
Speaker 1: the Russians, that, Russia, Russia, Russia. Finally, this insanity of
Speaker 1: at least the Special Council is coming to an end.
Speaker 1: It's a good day. It's a good day for America.
Speaker 1: I would also note that I think you and take
Speaker 1: something from the fact that this is being dropped on
Speaker 1: a Friday in late March, as some of my colleagues
Speaker 1: online have pointed out, while March madness is going on,
Speaker 1: and this is a government Friday post five pm news
Speaker 1: dump situation. If this report said that the President United
Speaker 1: States should be criminally charged. Now I know they've said
Speaker 1: there's no indictments, but even if you know, if you're
Speaker 1: going to take the position that maybe they suggest that
Speaker 1: the president could have been indicted but will not be indicted,
Speaker 1: and we don't know what's in the report yet. But
Speaker 1: if that were the case, trust me, they wouldn't wait
Speaker 1: until a Friday afternoon or evening to let this thing.
Speaker 1: Let this thing go, No way, I'm going to have
Speaker 1: to really take a beat and think about how much
Speaker 1: how much twitter curb stomping I plan to do of
Speaker 1: insane luecheck libs who have been running around with this
Speaker 1: for days from days for years now, and they should
Speaker 1: be held to account. I do not believe they will
Speaker 1: be held to account, but they should be. What they
Speaker 1: did was reckless, what CNN did weaponizing itself against the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency by being the center of this conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: about Trump working with the Russians to steal an election
Speaker 1: from Hillary Clinton as though the as though the presidency
Speaker 1: was her property. That, my friends, is not not something
Speaker 1: that we should let go lightly. That is not something
Speaker 1: that we should forget. And I do hope that there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity here for a reckoning. But the Muller report
Speaker 1: is in the Special Council is done. This National Nightmare
Speaker 1: has at least ended a very destructive chapter. And take
Speaker 1: a moment for yourself. For those of you who have
Speaker 1: been listening to this show, those of you across the
Speaker 1: country to just remember we were right all along. These
Speaker 1: people at New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, all
Speaker 1: the different left wing websites and move On and all
Speaker 1: media matters and these crappy, terrible, disgusting smear machines, they
Speaker 1: were wrong. We were right. They were full of it.
Speaker 1: We were full of truth. You deserve, we deserve a
Speaker 1: moment of victory on this one. We don't know what's
Speaker 1: in that report. We'll no more details soon, but we
Speaker 1: do know this. There was no collusion, and that's what
Speaker 1: this was all about. I've got more on this. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. Think of it. I have a deputy appoints
Speaker 1: a man to write a report on me to make
Speaker 1: a determination of my presidency. People will not stand for it. Now,
Speaker 1: with all of that being said, for two years, we've
Speaker 1: gone through this nonsense. Because there's no collusion with Russia.
Speaker 1: You know that better than anybody. And there's no obstruction.
Speaker 1: They'll say, oh, well, wait, there was no collusion. That
Speaker 1: was a hoax, but he obstructed in fighting against the hoax. Okay,
Speaker 1: think about that one for a second. Trump is right, folks,
Speaker 1: He's been right on this one all along. Okay, Trump
Speaker 1: is correct, his detractors, his haters. The Momulla Report is done,
Speaker 1: which means there are no more indictments. Now people are
Speaker 1: gonna say, oh, look, shiny object, shiny object. The Southern
Speaker 1: District maybe is too that has the mandate of Russia
Speaker 1: collusion is finished and there are no more indictments that
Speaker 1: have been handed down, which means that, guess what, folks,
Speaker 1: there was no collusion, which we have known all along.
Speaker 1: And now you're gonna have a lot of people who
Speaker 1: have a tremendous professional investment in this who we're gonna
Speaker 1: try to come up with a way to explain to us.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, CNN producer Mike was telling me
Speaker 1: that one this thing broke, CNN has got a panel
Speaker 1: of like everybody and their grandma, and they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: trying to talk about this. CNN has zero credibility on this,
Speaker 1: zero none whatsoever. Nobody should be listening to what CNN
Speaker 1: has to say about Russia collusion because they've been putting
Speaker 1: hysterical liars on TV for two years. And just for
Speaker 1: the record, not to jump in here, but I think
Speaker 1: it's the first time that anybody on CNN has smiled
Speaker 1: in the year twenty nineteen. I just want to say that, Well,
Speaker 1: but Mike, why are they smiling? There's no collusion. They're
Speaker 1: just happy that it's out. They I don't know, they
Speaker 1: don't I don't even think they know why they're smiling.
Speaker 1: It's well, I mean, I guess maybe maybe they're happy,
Speaker 1: like you know, when sometimes criminals want to get caught.
Speaker 1: You know, the con is over now, right, the CNN,
Speaker 1: all these people, when people wrote books about how collusion
Speaker 1: is you know, going to break down this presidency, and
Speaker 1: this is Watergate and all this stuff. Do any of
Speaker 1: those people get to get mocked publicly? Do we get
Speaker 1: to say that this has been an embarrassment all along.
Speaker 1: Do we get to point out that they have been
Speaker 1: completely detached from reality for the last two years, and
Speaker 1: they've been doing so in bad faith in order to
Speaker 1: take down a president's You know, will there be any
Speaker 1: consequences for this? I would like to say yes. I
Speaker 1: think the answers probably no. And we all know why
Speaker 1: this happened, what this came from. Right, they could not accept.
Speaker 1: They were too deranged with hatred for Trump and oh
Speaker 1: all the laws of not having Hillary Hello be president
Speaker 1: of the United States? They just couldn't handle it. Trump
Speaker 1: is right, This was all an excuse, play clip. They
Speaker 1: came up with an excuse for losing an election. This
Speaker 1: should never happen to another president because most presidents wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to take it. I know the politicians, I
Speaker 1: know the president. I know, I know what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: Most people wouldn't be able to take it. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you something, where what happened to me should never
Speaker 1: happen to another president of the United States because I
Speaker 1: depend on this right here, mind not other people. They
Speaker 1: have treated me so viciously. They have treated me so badly,
Speaker 1: and we did nothing wrong. You look at the other
Speaker 1: and all of these people you hear about that had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Russia, Russia, collusion, nothing. It's all
Speaker 1: a big hoax. It's a witch hunt, and it's a hoax.
Speaker 1: It is a witch hunt. It is a hoax, and
Speaker 1: I want accountability for it. I don't know if we'll
Speaker 1: ever get it. I mean, these people that have been
Speaker 1: running around with this theory, these so called serious journalists,
Speaker 1: I mean, seeing that has just been a dumpster fire
Speaker 1: on this just the worst. I mean, let's let's just
Speaker 1: be real about this. Folks, The dominant news story of
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency of the last two years has been
Speaker 1: a media hoax. I don't think the media should ever
Speaker 1: recover from this. I don't think we should ever be
Speaker 1: forced to take them seriously again. If we ever took
Speaker 1: them seriously, they have covered themselves in dishonor. And now
Speaker 1: they're going to act like we're supposed to accept this.
Speaker 1: And there were people who were paid analysts on the
Speaker 1: on the left wing network, which is everything except for Fox.
Speaker 1: They're paid analysts are going on TV who we're suggesting
Speaker 1: that the president's children might go to you know, might
Speaker 1: get federally prosecuted, that the president's going to be impeached,
Speaker 1: maybe even removed from office, that the president himself might
Speaker 1: go to prison over this prison over what I'll never
Speaker 1: forget when the President told me in the Oval office,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion is just a who would even do it?
Speaker 1: It's such a stupid idea, you remember, stretching back to
Speaker 1: the beginning of the Special Council investigation, That's what I
Speaker 1: was saying. This doesn't even make sense as a plan.
Speaker 1: It's not even a you know, if Trump is a
Speaker 1: bank robber, this is like showing up to a bank
Speaker 1: where you know the vault is empty. Who would do that.
Speaker 1: It's not even a good plot to steal an election.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't work, and it
Speaker 1: wouldn't work, and it would be incredibly risky, and the
Speaker 1: chances of being caught are so very high. And that's
Speaker 1: one thing that you have to keep this in mind.
Speaker 1: They're going to try to tell you that maybe it's
Speaker 1: maybe there still was collusion, maybe this still happened. They
Speaker 1: have to keep digging and looking more. If Robert Muller
Speaker 1: and the very aggressive demo crap prosecutors that he pulled together,
Speaker 1: spending tens of millions of dollars, if they didn't find collusion.
Speaker 1: Anybody who tells you that maybe there was still collusion
Speaker 1: is nuts. Anyone who tells you that we need Congress
Speaker 1: now to spend its time and resources trying to investigate
Speaker 1: this thing more thoroughly is either a liar or just crazy.
Speaker 1: Muller had unlimited ability to pull phone records, pull emails,
Speaker 1: get all the content, pull all the business transactions, all
Speaker 1: the bank records, bring witnesses in, put them under oath,
Speaker 1: prosecute them, send them to prison if they didn't tell
Speaker 1: the truth. What more could realistically be done? The answers
Speaker 1: nothing unless the goal here is twofold cover up for
Speaker 1: this lie, and then move on to further harassment, cover
Speaker 1: up this absolute disgrace perpetrated by the Democrats against this president,
Speaker 1: and then quickly transition into we need his tax returns,
Speaker 1: we need to investigate more, and oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: maybe there's still Russia collusion. This whole thing is the
Speaker 1: biggest political scandal of my lifetime. It's something that should
Speaker 1: really make people think long and hard about not just
Speaker 1: the media, but the core of the Democratic Party. I mean,
Speaker 1: is the Democratic Party a serious ethical I know you're
Speaker 1: laughing already, but but really, you know, do they do
Speaker 1: they operate with any good faith whatsoever? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is how they oppose a president. This is how they
Speaker 1: they show their political opposition by trying to weaponize the
Speaker 1: investigative functions of the federal government against the commander in
Speaker 1: chief and use their media allies and their lackeys and
Speaker 1: the mainstream press to create this this fabricated story. You know,
Speaker 1: we really I I have a couple of drinks this
Speaker 1: weekend and just let this whole thing settle. We have
Speaker 1: been through an ordeal as a country and for what
Speaker 1: for what, So that you know, Rachel Maddow has some
Speaker 1: just lunacy to share with her rapidly left wing audience
Speaker 1: every night, so that Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer can
Speaker 1: pretend to be just journalists looking for the truth, and
Speaker 1: CNN can put all these former deep staters on its payroll,
Speaker 1: all in an effort to try to find ways to
Speaker 1: take down Trump. This is what they've done, this is
Speaker 1: what they've offered up. I mean, they should be ashamed,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately they are incapable of shame. It's one of
Speaker 1: the traits that Democrats have that makes them very resilient.
Speaker 1: We will not let them scurry away from this one.
Speaker 1: We will not let them just pretend that this never happened.
Speaker 1: They need to be made to own If they are
Speaker 1: not going to pay for it, at least they have
Speaker 1: to own it for the next two years. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that the last two years matter for
Speaker 1: the next two years, going into the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: because or the next whatever it is now you know,
Speaker 1: eighteen months, because this has been a this has been
Speaker 1: an abject catastrophe of lies, falsehoods, and so many people
Speaker 1: believed this. Why is it that you and I knew?
Speaker 1: I didn't think there was no collusion. I knew there
Speaker 1: was no collusion. Why did we Well, it's kind of like,
Speaker 1: how did I know Jesse Smollett was lying? And the
Speaker 1: left just couldn't figure that out? You know, at what
Speaker 1: point is it clear that there is a wisdom, knowledge,
Speaker 1: and sanity disparity between the right and the left. How
Speaker 1: much crazier would they have to be? How much more
Speaker 1: delusional and ideologically driven in defiance of reality would they
Speaker 1: have to be before we'd be able to say, you
Speaker 1: know what, we're not really dealing with the people playing
Speaker 1: with a full deck, so to speak, over here, that
Speaker 1: the left really has lost its mind and that should
Speaker 1: be scared everybody because now the far left is in
Speaker 1: control the Democratic Party. Are we talking more about that
Speaker 1: here in just a moment, But yes, the Mola report
Speaker 1: has been handed in. With my Republican colleagues, they say
Speaker 1: things and I'm like, what does that have to do
Speaker 1: with what we're talking about? And like the person's like
Speaker 1: in charge of National flood Insurance program. We're like, what
Speaker 1: an the woman said yes or no and yeah, and
Speaker 1: she goes, yes, you're really good at just saying a
Speaker 1: I mean it's weird and like yeah, yeah, kind of
Speaker 1: this Fox News lunacies and is like in the well,
Speaker 1: like we're voting on like gun reform, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I think it. I think it is interesting. Have you
Speaker 1: met with a lot of inner party resistance. Yeah, Congressional
Speaker 1: hearings are not a Beyonce concert. You know, most powerful
Speaker 1: democrat in the country, folks, right there, number one right now,
Speaker 1: a woman who I have yet to hear her say
Speaker 1: a single insightful thing about anything. And I think that,
Speaker 1: with the way the media treats her, is just yet
Speaker 1: another data point for why we should not take the
Speaker 1: media very seriously, because they do not view their job
Speaker 1: as as challenging power. They are all vessels for the
Speaker 1: aggrandizement of AOC. They view their role as finding ways
Speaker 1: to make her look even more fantastic. We'll talk later
Speaker 1: on in the show about what she said in Time
Speaker 1: magazine and some of the the just idiocy on display.
Speaker 1: But I can't get away from the fact that we've
Speaker 1: been told that so many stories about how Trump is is,
Speaker 1: you know, not as rich as he says, and he's
Speaker 1: intellectually incurious and he never reads and he does watch TV.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, if the Democrats put forward the
Speaker 1: my proverbial you know, PhD in astrophysics, Navy seal who
Speaker 1: just wants to better run the welfare state in this
Speaker 1: country and have a more humble foreign policy with less interventionism,
Speaker 1: and you know, is willing to secure the borders with
Speaker 1: and not promote amistic well that now you can't be
Speaker 1: a damage. See this is a problem the Democrats. You
Speaker 1: know what, I just talked myself out of this whole thesis.
Speaker 1: They can't put forward a normal candidate or impressive candidate.
Speaker 1: They have to put forward this. This is this is
Speaker 1: who they are. I think that we as conservatives have
Speaker 1: a little bit of denialism here, I know I do.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I keep thinking that they're going to snap out
Speaker 1: of it and go back to there. The Democrat Party
Speaker 1: has been socialist in its ethos for a long time,
Speaker 1: increasingly aggressively socialist. But at least they used to have
Speaker 1: to to play the game a little bit and make
Speaker 1: enough of the country think that they care more. They
Speaker 1: care about workers, and they care more about your healthcare.
Speaker 1: And this was always the you know, they're the party
Speaker 1: of the nice people who want to do the government's
Speaker 1: going to help you. The government's going to be your friend,
Speaker 1: it's going to it's going to assist you. And you know,
Speaker 1: I just have got to say that it's it's very,
Speaker 1: very frustrating that we are now in a position where
Speaker 1: everything that we said was going to happen with the
Speaker 1: Democrats about how they would be the party of socialism
Speaker 1: and that would be calling for single payer has come true,
Speaker 1: and the media just blows past that, like what our
Speaker 1: conservatives are we a bunch of wizards? Can we tell
Speaker 1: the future? Now? We've understood what the game plan is
Speaker 1: here for a long time, but now they're finally at
Speaker 1: the point where they can't hide it anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: now now we see that left to their own devices,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party is now the party of Democrat socialism.
Speaker 1: They're not Stalinists. Yes, they're not hardcore communists that are
Speaker 1: going to set up a central committee, but their central
Speaker 1: committee is really just a dispersed one. It's a very
Speaker 1: broad communist central committee. The Democrats, their central committee is
Speaker 1: you know, the barons of Silicon Valley and the heads
Speaker 1: of media media organizations, and there you know, the billionaires
Speaker 1: that are pushing climate change and major lifestyle choices on
Speaker 1: people that are actually gonna have to live with the
Speaker 1: conse of it, unlike the billionaires. So you know, there's
Speaker 1: a little bit, there's a there's shadows of that, there's
Speaker 1: little flavors of that, but they're not yet hardcore, and
Speaker 1: they're not going to be anytime soon, I think hardcore Stalinists,
Speaker 1: although on speech they're getting. You know, I kind of
Speaker 1: go back and forth on some of the stuff. I
Speaker 1: talk myself into what I think is the real essence
Speaker 1: of where the Democratic Party, well where it is now,
Speaker 1: but also where it's going, and I just think that,
Speaker 1: you know, they can't they can't help themselves, you know, AOC.
Speaker 1: As much as I want to believe that Okazio Cortez
Speaker 1: is some kind of aberration, that she is a departure
Speaker 1: otherwise solid Democrat Party norms, now what's happened is she
Speaker 1: is the Democrat Party. Now. Pelosi is just a part
Speaker 1: of the machinery of the Democrat Party. But the person
Speaker 1: at the controls who's deciding where the machine's gonna go
Speaker 1: and what it's gonna do, that's now AOC. Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and some of these other prominent Democrats that
Speaker 1: you're seeing like Corey Booker, Kamala Harris. They are going
Speaker 1: to be drawn further and further into that that you
Speaker 1: are not going to see this snap into the center.
Speaker 1: And that's why I think Biden when he does get in,
Speaker 1: I know, the pole show and being pretty strong, but
Speaker 1: it'll be clear to people who are astute observers pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: I think Biden is going to look like the old
Speaker 1: the old guy who is that's right, you know what's
Speaker 1: coming doing a belly flop into the shallow end of
Speaker 1: the pool. I mean, it's just not gonna work. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna work. He's not compelling, he's not in the
Speaker 1: zeitgeist at all. You know. The only way he maybe
Speaker 1: makes it work is this idea that was floated this
Speaker 1: week of Stacy Abrams kind of like Beto and that
Speaker 1: another Democrat who lost but we're still supposed to think
Speaker 1: is a winner anyway and doesn't even accept that she lost.
Speaker 1: Abrams may run on the bottom side of the ticket,
Speaker 1: and Biden says that it may say that he'll only
Speaker 1: serve one term, and so then you get the optics
Speaker 1: of a nationally recognizable African American female politician as the
Speaker 1: you know, the person in waiting essentially to be the
Speaker 1: president as the VP. You know, the idea that she'd
Speaker 1: it will be handed off to her in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: maybe hers to run with in twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 1: that Biden would retire after four years as president. That's
Speaker 1: the only way that I think that Biden really has
Speaker 1: a chance of being president. I do not, and I
Speaker 1: don't think people care enough about the VP. Look what
Speaker 1: happened John McCain and Sarah Palin. I don't think that
Speaker 1: people care enough about the VP for that strategy to work.
Speaker 1: I think everyone realizes the VP is you know, VP
Speaker 1: is there in case of VP is not exactly blowing
Speaker 1: people's minds. We'll be right back, Governor. Some of your
Speaker 1: male competitors have vowed to put a woman on the ticket,
Speaker 1: yes or no? Would you do the same, Well again,
Speaker 1: of course, but I think that we should be Well,
Speaker 1: I'll ask you another question. How come we aren't asking
Speaker 1: the question? I don't, I don't, but half couple we're
Speaker 1: not asking. We're not asking more often the women who
Speaker 1: should be willing to put a man on the ticket
Speaker 1: when we get to that point. So that was I know,
Speaker 1: we played that for you yesterday. And just I mean,
Speaker 1: Hickenloper seems like kind of a dork, you know, not
Speaker 1: that far left from what I understand. I don't really
Speaker 1: know much about him, but this is an interesting and
Speaker 1: interesting little moment because that you know, it was just
Speaker 1: the thing about hick and Looper that got attention this week.
Speaker 1: People got really really upset about this. And and I'm
Speaker 1: noticing that this trend on the left, it's look at
Speaker 1: there's there has been a a hyper ventilating victimhood that
Speaker 1: is at the heart of feminism for a long time.
Speaker 1: I mean, feminists have thought for a long time that
Speaker 1: they are you know that that women and I mean
Speaker 1: in recent years. I'm not talking about when women did
Speaker 1: not have equal rights, which was which was wrong, and
Speaker 1: but you know that has been corrected. Women do have
Speaker 1: equal rights. And in fact, if you go into family
Speaker 1: court now, which you will find is that women actually
Speaker 1: have in some legal contexts more rights than men. Family
Speaker 1: courts are incredibly skewed toward females over males, for just
Speaker 1: just because the mom is is the one who is
Speaker 1: more likely to get custom of the kids just because
Speaker 1: right So, on a legal basis, women actually have more
Speaker 1: rights than men in some contexts, and in general have
Speaker 1: the same rights. But there's still this, you know, the
Speaker 1: the and I think it really comes from the boomer
Speaker 1: finists out there, who, unfortunately a lot of them, I think,
Speaker 1: have some regrets about how certain things when certain things
Speaker 1: have gone, certainly regrets about Hillary Clinton not winning the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. There's a bitterness. I mean, feminism and
Speaker 1: bitterness are very much intertwined. And also feminists don't have
Speaker 1: a sense of humor, which is another really undesirable, unlikable
Speaker 1: trait of feminism. They just nothing is funny to a feminist, right.
Speaker 1: You know, you hear the joke about the feminist and
Speaker 1: the other feminists. You know, that's not funny, that's the joke.
Speaker 1: Here's what the media said about Hey, Hick and Looper. Look,
Speaker 1: he made a kind of goofy look, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: we should ask if the men will be on the two,
Speaker 1: you know, But he actually kind of got it a
Speaker 1: little bit of a truth there, which is why why
Speaker 1: am I required to have a female as a vice president?
Speaker 1: Why don't I just have the best person for the job.
Speaker 1: Right and the media got upset about this. Play three
Speaker 1: John hick and Looper's answer about the possibility of a
Speaker 1: female running mate sparking backlash. I don't know what the
Speaker 1: heck he was talking about. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats who feel that women haven't been given their just due,
Speaker 1: so when Hickenlooper says things like that, he's basically dismissing
Speaker 1: those concerns. Craig, I don't even know how to reply
Speaker 1: to that. I mean, forty five presidents have been men.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that speaks for itself. I think
Speaker 1: it's just one of those answers that you really grown at.
Speaker 1: I certainly did when I saw it. I think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna send Governor Hickenlooper copy of those place mats with
Speaker 1: all the president's faces on them that are all men. See.
Speaker 1: This is at the center of why identity politics is
Speaker 1: an intellectual failure, and we'll always fall into self contradiction,
Speaker 1: We'll always fall into hypocrisy and an inability to defend
Speaker 1: itself as as an ideological system, and so therefore it
Speaker 1: will just go on attack. It will always go at
Speaker 1: hominem Right, identity politics cannot stand because it isn't based
Speaker 1: in a principle that is defensible. If in fact, it's
Speaker 1: the case that we should have a president who is
Speaker 1: a woman just because we have not had a president
Speaker 1: or a vice president who is a woman, then shouldn't
Speaker 1: it also be the case that we have a duty
Speaker 1: to have the next forty five presidents be women. Don't
Speaker 1: we have to balance it out? I mean, if if
Speaker 1: we're going to take the position that it's not in
Speaker 1: the here and now, when we are actively deciding a question,
Speaker 1: and you know, in twenty nineteen in America, it's not
Speaker 1: about who is the best and who the people choose
Speaker 1: for the job, that gender should matter as a as
Speaker 1: a factor, a perhaps deciding factor in that. Why shouldn't
Speaker 1: gender matter for the next forty five When is it enough?
Speaker 1: This is why the left also gets very uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: the idea of quotas. They want the appearance of a
Speaker 1: quota thought without the admission of a quota existing, because well,
Speaker 1: how the moment that you say that you have a quota,
Speaker 1: you're not basing something on merit, or in this case,
Speaker 1: you're not basing it on the will of the people.
Speaker 1: You're mandating something that is external from that, will you're
Speaker 1: mandating something that is different from the meritocracy or what
Speaker 1: have you. Right there, there's a separation of the of
Speaker 1: principle here that occurs. So when they when they bring up,
Speaker 1: you know, why don't you have a woman a woman
Speaker 1: who will be on your on your ticket? And he's like, well,
Speaker 1: why do what do I have to you know, he
Speaker 1: said it like in a goofy way, But the point
Speaker 1: is valid, which is does he have to Is this
Speaker 1: now a requirement? I mean, why is he being asked that?
Speaker 1: And now I don't think it's a problem that Donna
Speaker 1: bash Do not call her Dana, it's Donna bash. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a problem that she has a
Speaker 1: journal has asked him, and it's fine she can say
Speaker 1: should you have a woman on your ticket? But I
Speaker 1: think it's funny is that the media got angry at
Speaker 1: him for saying it's kind of a silly it's kind
Speaker 1: of an unimportant, silly question because it either you either
Speaker 1: want the best person for the job. And this is
Speaker 1: why identity politics, whether it's based on gender or race,
Speaker 1: or sexual orientation or anything else, always runs into this issue.
Speaker 1: They want to tell us that it's the best person
Speaker 1: should get the job. But then when we say, okay,
Speaker 1: well how do we how do we determine who the
Speaker 1: best person is for the job, they say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we really need a person who looks like X, we
Speaker 1: really want a person who is of why background. But
Speaker 1: that that doesn't that's a superficial characteristic. That's not that's
Speaker 1: not within the wheelhouse of how we're supposed to decide this.
Speaker 1: That's a that's an externality that you're now saying should
Speaker 1: perhaps even be the decisive factor. This is always the
Speaker 1: problem with identity politics. It's always the problem with the
Speaker 1: intersectional left. They want you to they want to create
Speaker 1: the anxiety around accusations of sexism, accusations of racism, and
Speaker 1: so people will act accordingly. You know, you're always going
Speaker 1: to get the tie goes to the aggrieved minority, the
Speaker 1: aggrieved sex, the aggrieved sexual oritation, whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: and in a lot of cases a lot more than
Speaker 1: just the tie. But if you bring that up and say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, is this I mean, for example,
Speaker 1: if you have a talk with any Democrat about whether
Speaker 1: it was an advantage for Barack Obama to be an
Speaker 1: African American running for president. They look at you like
Speaker 1: you're crazy. Now, I'm not saying that as an African
Speaker 1: American Barack Obama did not overcome a lot of adversing
Speaker 1: in his life. I'm not African American, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: he did. But this pretense that it wasn't a differentiating
Speaker 1: and overwhelmingly viewed as positive, groundbreaking historical characteristic of Obama,
Speaker 1: that yes, he was black, is delusional. But the left
Speaker 1: still they all, I mean, they they claim that the
Speaker 1: fact that he was black was a disadvantage in the election,
Speaker 1: and all the evidence is to the contrary, which speaks
Speaker 1: to I think the you know, it's all to the good,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad that the American people are what we are,
Speaker 1: which is open minded and tolerant, and you know, we
Speaker 1: aren't nearly as sexist, racist and all these other things
Speaker 1: as the left wing media would have us believe. But
Speaker 1: I mean, let's just can we at least be honest
Speaker 1: about these things? When is something an advantage? You know,
Speaker 1: they'll tell you vote for this person because of their
Speaker 1: gender or their you know, their ethnicity, or their sexual orientation.
Speaker 1: But when you say, okay, so they have an advantage, Now,
Speaker 1: because of that, you're told no, no, you can't say that. Well,
Speaker 1: which is it? I just want to know. Can we
Speaker 1: have clarity on this? If you're telling me it's a
Speaker 1: reason to vote for a person that's an advantage, that
Speaker 1: that's not a disadvantage. And if you're telling me, or
Speaker 1: you're telling Hick and Looper that he has to have
Speaker 1: a woman as vice president, jo't also tell him that
Speaker 1: he's picking the vice president because that's the best person.
Speaker 1: Because if you were picking the best person, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: tell him he has to pick a woman. You see,
Speaker 1: this is the incoherence of identity politics laid bare for you.
Speaker 1: And people in the media. They don't grapple all this
Speaker 1: stuff in any in any serious sense, in any serious way.
Speaker 1: And that's why I have so much fun making fun
Speaker 1: of their silliness on a regular basis. But wow, our
Speaker 1: Friday is already rolling along. Your team, we have much
Speaker 1: more to go. I'll be right back. So I interviewed
Speaker 1: a Democratic candidate for the presidency today, and I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you a team it was actually, it was actually
Speaker 1: pretty pretty intriguing. This fellow. Um, I think his policies
Speaker 1: would if enact, did his broad you know, major policies
Speaker 1: would be really bad for the country. But I think
Speaker 1: he is an earnest and sharp guy, and I can engage.
Speaker 1: I can engage with leftists who want to engage in
Speaker 1: good faith. Always I'll engage with anyone who wants to
Speaker 1: engage in good faith. Right if someone wants to sit
Speaker 1: down and tell me that we need to kill all
Speaker 1: the cows and get off of fossil fuels and they
Speaker 1: want to talk about it, I'll do that if if
Speaker 1: they want to take that position, kill all the cows,
Speaker 1: no more fossil fuels. And if I don't agree, it's
Speaker 1: because I'm a racist, big as sexist. That's not really
Speaker 1: a useful exercise. To his credit, Democratic candidate for the presidency,
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang is in the I want to talk category,
Speaker 1: and so we had a sit down today. It was
Speaker 1: on rising the left right, liberal slash conservative. Both sides
Speaker 1: show that I do at the Hill, and we had
Speaker 1: to have an interesting talk. So first it was on
Speaker 1: universal basic income, which he calls the free m dividend,
Speaker 1: and the idea there is that there will be a
Speaker 1: massive program of a thousand dollars a month for everyone
Speaker 1: in the United States over the age of eighteen. I said,
Speaker 1: how will you found this? He said, well, well, we'll
Speaker 1: tax some of these super successful Silicon Valley companies and
Speaker 1: other industry and probably Wall Street, maybe a special internet tax.
Speaker 1: So that will be a massive program, incredibly expensive and
Speaker 1: a massive tax to pay for it. But at least
Speaker 1: he's saying, no, we're going to really tax the you know,
Speaker 1: tax that you know what out of things. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're going to really go for it. But you're all,
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna get a check, no matter who you are,
Speaker 1: you gonna check every month in the government for a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So I think this is a good idea. No,
Speaker 1: because the thousand's going to turn into Okay, well some
Speaker 1: people should get two thousand, and then some people should
Speaker 1: get three thousand, and then you know it whenever you
Speaker 1: create an entitlement and then you start haggling over how
Speaker 1: much bigger the entitlement gets. So I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a good idea. But it's not a bizarre idea. It's
Speaker 1: not like the Green New Deal crazy level of ideas.
Speaker 1: He also wants medicare for all, and I keep saying
Speaker 1: that in a world where we don't care about the debt,
Speaker 1: Medicare for a world we don't care about the debt.
Speaker 1: And if you don't care about rationing and shortages in care,
Speaker 1: if you don't care about waiting six months to see
Speaker 1: your doctor, then we could do Medicare for all. The
Speaker 1: problems with it are that you're gonna wait forever because
Speaker 1: they'll be rationing, and it's going to blow a massive
Speaker 1: hole through an already sinking ship of a debt. It's
Speaker 1: going to be completely you know, we're gonna be at
Speaker 1: thirty trillion dollars before you know it, I mean fast.
Speaker 1: If we do Medicare for all, it's gonna be wildly expensive.
Speaker 1: But if you're willing to wait, and you're and he
Speaker 1: understands this is very expensive, you know, he says, we
Speaker 1: already spend more than other countries on care. And to that,
Speaker 1: I say, first of all, Americans, and they never want
Speaker 1: to talk about this in folks. I gotta as I
Speaker 1: sit here and I'm thinking about the gluten free pizza
Speaker 1: that I'm going to be eating tonight and the gluten
Speaker 1: free pasta that I may be ordering, Americans are not
Speaker 1: as healthy as their European counterparts. We require. This is
Speaker 1: a fact that don't get mad at me. I'm not
Speaker 1: telling you, hey, put down that cheeseburger and eat some
Speaker 1: tofu because I'm not a communist. But Americans are not
Speaker 1: as healthy as are the Europeans, and so we automatically
Speaker 1: have higher healthcare costs because of that. And we also
Speaker 1: have better outcomes of particularly for cancer treatment, than anybody
Speaker 1: over there. So if you get really sick, you want
Speaker 1: to be in America. If you get a little sick,
Speaker 1: you might want to be in Europe. But Americans tend
Speaker 1: to be sicker than their European counterparts. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, one of the reasons that our healthcare costs
Speaker 1: is so high is prescription drug prices. And that's just chronyism.
Speaker 1: That's not a function of you know, Medicare or Medicaid.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just legislation and regulations that are in
Speaker 1: place that allow these companies to just benefit themselves in
Speaker 1: a way that he's egregious. That's that is what's happening.
Speaker 1: You know, they sell it for different prices around the world,
Speaker 1: but they sell it for in a much, much, much
Speaker 1: higher priced here to extract as much as they can
Speaker 1: have the out of the American market. I mean, there
Speaker 1: is some and the Trump administration knows this. There's some
Speaker 1: regulatory reform that has to happen. There no question about it.
Speaker 1: So Medicare for all he likes. Again, he knows the
Speaker 1: ups and that he doesn't accept the downsides that I
Speaker 1: brought up to him, but he at least is aware
Speaker 1: of them. This guy, look, this guy Yang, he went
Speaker 1: on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's a People are calling his
Speaker 1: supporters the Yang gang. He's an interesting guy, and you know,
Speaker 1: he's very polite, he's he's not he doesn't run around
Speaker 1: calling everybody a racist. And I'm biggetting everything else. So
Speaker 1: I found him far more interesting to talk to than
Speaker 1: some of the other Democrats that I've come across recently,
Speaker 1: way less interested, incuring, at least based on my interview
Speaker 1: with them today, lecturing people on you know how just
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is some horrible monster and racist and everything else.
Speaker 1: And then his other big ideas, and this ties into
Speaker 1: the universal basic income, is that automation is going to
Speaker 1: get rid of millions and millions of jobs within the
Speaker 1: next ten years. And even if we have the displacement
Speaker 1: of those jobs filled in other ways, it'll take a while.
Speaker 1: It'll be highly disruptive, and we need to be prepared
Speaker 1: for it. I think that's a that is also a
Speaker 1: serious argument. Now I'm not sure that the answer does
Speaker 1: it just give people? Bunny and I don't. And I
Speaker 1: also don't believe that anybody can really predict the future.
Speaker 1: You can, you should prepare for the future based on
Speaker 1: your best predictions, but nobody can really predict the future.
Speaker 1: So on automation though, and he loved the book Rise
Speaker 1: of the Robots, which I have, and I'm embarrassed to
Speaker 1: tell you I have it in my stack right now.
Speaker 1: I have not gotten to it yet, but it is
Speaker 1: in my read stack. I got to get through this
Speaker 1: book on the Lost City of the of the Monkey God.
Speaker 1: I'm never reading another book about archaeology. Oh you know,
Speaker 1: all these archaeologists are like, I had to sleep in
Speaker 1: this little tent and there were snakes outside. Ooh you know.
Speaker 1: And then I found a big mound that maybe was
Speaker 1: used for burial purposes. I just I got to get
Speaker 1: to a point in life where I see my thing is,
Speaker 1: I won't bail on a book. I rarely will bail
Speaker 1: on it. I because I think that i've I've like
Speaker 1: given up, but I won't let the book if it's
Speaker 1: a bad book. I don't want to let it win
Speaker 1: by saying I'm not going to read this book anymore.
Speaker 1: But then you get stuck reading a bad book for
Speaker 1: hours and hours and hours, especially if it's bad. You
Speaker 1: really are you know, I have very few books that
Speaker 1: I've only gotten halfway through and then finished off. So
Speaker 1: so you know, the young thing was it worthwhile exchange? Today?
Speaker 1: I tell you, I really I found him to be um.
Speaker 1: I disagree with them on everything, but it was it
Speaker 1: reminded me that it's possible to think that a leftist
Speaker 1: is wrong about everything and not want to scream at
Speaker 1: them to stop being a psycho lib that know nothing.
Speaker 1: You know, he's he's he's thoughtful about being wrong, which
Speaker 1: I can appreciate. Then he's got some other ideas I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna tell you get me real excited. And the
Speaker 1: Federalist pulled some of these together. He wants a national
Speaker 1: texting line to report annoying robo calls. I think the
Speaker 1: robo calls are specifically set up to go off on
Speaker 1: my phone while I'm doing this radio show. And I
Speaker 1: cannot tell you how many times I have in my
Speaker 1: head had to stifle a curse and throwing my phone
Speaker 1: at the wall because I'm about to just reach that
Speaker 1: that moment of I've been building to that one thought
Speaker 1: that's coming during the monologue, and it's and then you know,
Speaker 1: on my desk and it's a robo call. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell it's a robo call. So I like
Speaker 1: that idea. He got into an exchange with Ben Shapiro
Speaker 1: about ending infant circumcision, and we asked him about that
Speaker 1: today and this was just on Twitter, but he thinks
Speaker 1: that circumcision isn't something it's not the health benefits are
Speaker 1: not clear. These obviously male circumcision we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: and whenever, just talking about it kind of makes me think, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna be honest with you. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's an idea and it's something that he might be
Speaker 1: talking to people about. And then he also thinks that
Speaker 1: we should have the American Mall Act to deal with
Speaker 1: the fact that malls are turning into ghost towns, which
Speaker 1: I don't know if the government really has a role
Speaker 1: in that. I think that real estate will get sold
Speaker 1: to other other use and that'll be fine. But anyway,
Speaker 1: he's a thoughtful guy. So you know, I'm not just
Speaker 1: here to just trash libs. I'd like to engage in ideas,
Speaker 1: and he's a guy with ideas, so we engage in
Speaker 1: them and explain why they are wrong. But I'm glad
Speaker 1: that he spent his time with us today. I did
Speaker 1: appreciate it, and team will be right back well. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration has behaved precisely the opposite of the way
Speaker 1: that the Obama administration behaved during the Green the Green
Speaker 1: effort in Iran. Instead of shutting the people, we've supported them.
Speaker 1: Instead of denying the rights of the people of Iran,
Speaker 1: we're supporting the rights of the people of Venezuela. We're
Speaker 1: committed to this. We're going to stay the course. There
Speaker 1: are multiple elements to this effort. There's the political element,
Speaker 1: there's the economic element. We are desperately trying to get
Speaker 1: humanitarian assistance to the people of Venezuela. We're committed to
Speaker 1: helping Venezuela the region deny Madure of the opportunity to
Speaker 1: engage in this thuggish behavior that has been so harmful
Speaker 1: to ordinary Venezuelans. We're determined to achieve this outcome, and
Speaker 1: we're optimistic that we can get there at some point,
Speaker 1: I would imagine things will change, but we really haven't
Speaker 1: done the really tough sanctions yet. We can do the
Speaker 1: tough sanctions and all options are open, so we may
Speaker 1: be doing that, but we haven't done the toughest of sanctions.
Speaker 1: As you know, we've done I would say, right down
Speaker 1: the middle, but we can go a lot tougher if
Speaker 1: we need to do that. Venezuela is still very much
Speaker 1: in the balance. No one really knows it hangs in
Speaker 1: the balance. What's going to happen here? Is it going
Speaker 1: to be Guido? Is it going to be Maduro? Who
Speaker 1: is left standing at the end of this. You have
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence writing in the Miami Herald the following
Speaker 1: Early yesterday morning, in Venezuela, armed members of Nicholas Maduro's
Speaker 1: secret intelligence for US broke into the homes of government
Speaker 1: officials connected to the only legitimate president of Venezuela, Juan Guido.
Speaker 1: Maduro's thugs threatened their lives and those are their family members,
Speaker 1: and they brutally kidnapped Roberto Marrero, President Guido's chief of staff.
Speaker 1: Even now, mister Marrero is being held against his will
Speaker 1: in an undisclosed location. The United States calls for the
Speaker 1: immediate release of Roberto Marrero. We will not tolerate Morrero's
Speaker 1: imprisonment or the intimidation of the legitimate government of Venezuela,
Speaker 1: and those responsible must be held accountable. Maduro must release
Speaker 1: Marrero now. This egregious violation of the rule of law
Speaker 1: is only the most recent example of Maduro's brutality and despotism.
Speaker 1: Last month, the world watched as the dictator danced in
Speaker 1: Caracas while his henchmen murdered civilians and blocked truckloads of
Speaker 1: food and medicine designed or destined for the suffering people
Speaker 1: of Venezuela. Just a few weeks before his inauguration, Maduro's
Speaker 1: intelligence forces arrested interim President Guido in a shameless attempt
Speaker 1: to bully him into silence. Fortunately they failed. Maduro's got
Speaker 1: to go is what Vice President Pence is saying here,
Speaker 1: and it is the United States government's official policy now
Speaker 1: that he has been for a while, that he must go.
Speaker 1: But dictators, thugs, despots, they tend not to go particularly quietly.
Speaker 1: And I can't say that I would expect anything different
Speaker 1: here from Maduro. And this is where I'm caught in
Speaker 1: this push pull in my brain between wanting to do
Speaker 1: more to help ensure the best outcome here for a
Speaker 1: country where there are legits, there are real US interests,
Speaker 1: and not not just humanitarian interest, but we do have
Speaker 1: an interest in access to Venezuela and oil reserves, that's
Speaker 1: just and oil markets, that's just the truth. We also
Speaker 1: have a humanitarian interest in trying to help ease the
Speaker 1: suffering of people who are malnourished, can't get medicine, murders skyrocketing,
Speaker 1: no rule of law in the streets, and tyranny increasingly
Speaker 1: holding them in its grip. So I feel all of
Speaker 1: those things very acutely. But I also, though, have this
Speaker 1: sense that we just don't need to take on another
Speaker 1: problem set for ourselves that's really somebody else's problem. I
Speaker 1: mean the diplomatic relations, the basic actions that we're taking
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. I think it's the right move, but we
Speaker 1: got to have clear lines about how far are willing
Speaker 1: to go here and when Trump is saying there that
Speaker 1: there may be additional additional sanctions, okay, sanctions, fine, but
Speaker 1: beyond that we have to start looking at when when
Speaker 1: are we doing too much and making something more more
Speaker 1: our problem than it should be. Then you also have
Speaker 1: some leftists in this country who are still they still
Speaker 1: look they can't really just I mean, they will say
Speaker 1: they're worried in a sense about what I'm worried about,
Speaker 1: which is us mission creep in Venezuela taking on more
Speaker 1: of this for ourselves. But I really just think that
Speaker 1: that's a cover for them because they have a sympathy
Speaker 1: for Majuro based on the aims of the Bolivarian Revolution,
Speaker 1: which is a social justice based approach to government. That's
Speaker 1: at the very root of this that the you know
Speaker 1: North Americans by that, I mean you know us, northe
Speaker 1: Americanos or whatever, that we are the reason for so
Speaker 1: much of the economic disparity and deprivation in Venezuela previously.
Speaker 1: I mean, now I think that's a harder case to make,
Speaker 1: or are they still Maduro still makes that case and
Speaker 1: it's our fault, It's on us, and that if only
Speaker 1: the greedy landowners and business owners were brought to heal
Speaker 1: by the government, everybody would have plenty of food and
Speaker 1: they'd all just be kind of hanging out and you know,
Speaker 1: in the country would be like one big beach party
Speaker 1: or something that is a massive failure. We all know this.
Speaker 1: There are these leftists that come across in America, in
Speaker 1: the media in particular, who just won't accept that Maduro
Speaker 1: is a really bad guy and has got to go that.
Speaker 1: They still hold to this idea that you know, he
Speaker 1: is legitimate, even though the election that is the only
Speaker 1: reason he's even technically considered the president was fraudulent. And
Speaker 1: I haven't come across anyone who disagrees with that assessment.
Speaker 1: But I also spoke today to a an author of
Speaker 1: author of a book about Afghanistan, and it's written a
Speaker 1: book about bou Burggall, and essentially he's using bou Burggall.
Speaker 1: From what I gathered from the interview, I haven't read
Speaker 1: the book and I don't plan to. To be fair,
Speaker 1: I did not find it a particularly compelling pitch. But
Speaker 1: the book is about bou Burggall, and he's this author
Speaker 1: and his and his co author have decided to make
Speaker 1: Burgdall something of a a cautionary tale about the US
Speaker 1: strategic mistakes in Afghanistan. Essentially, but Burggall was the result
Speaker 1: of bad US policy ideas and bad strategy, and really,
Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't hurt, It doesn't had he didn't
Speaker 1: have a critical word to say about Burggall today. This guy, now,
Speaker 1: he wasn't his co author as a veteran, He wasn't
Speaker 1: a veteran today who I was talking to. But I
Speaker 1: also had to sit there and say, I don't agree
Speaker 1: with using Burggall as a you know, his situation as
Speaker 1: a metaphor. That's what I was the word I was
Speaker 1: looking for before for the entire situation of Afghanistan. But
Speaker 1: I do think that as we are now in ongoing
Speaker 1: open negotiations with the Taliban, and in fact our negotiating,
Speaker 1: according to this author today with some of the very
Speaker 1: people that we traded for bo Bergdahl from the Taliban,
Speaker 1: that Afghanistan is one of these This is where I'm
Speaker 1: gonna need Trump. We're gonna talk more about how Trump
Speaker 1: will just pull the trigger. Other people won't do it
Speaker 1: on foreign policy, but Trump will pull the trigger. I
Speaker 1: need him to pull the trigger on Afghanistan because we've
Speaker 1: got it, we're done, and then we're done. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: all right, everybody, you know, load up the C one
Speaker 1: thirties and you know we're all coming home tomorrow. But
Speaker 1: it does mean in the next twelve months leaving full stop,
Speaker 1: we are gone. We will have an embassy there, We'll
Speaker 1: have some training forces here and there. But this notion
Speaker 1: of a permanent eight thousand man or seven thousand men
Speaker 1: military presence in Afghanistan, for which that indicates that we
Speaker 1: have a permanent responsibility for the national security state of
Speaker 1: that country, that just needs to end. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: already negotiating with the Taliban. We are negotiating, and people
Speaker 1: don't want to say this. We are negotiating with terrorists.
Speaker 1: That's happening. We're not supposed to do that. But Trump,
Speaker 1: I think just as you will see a full US
Speaker 1: withdrawal during the Trump presidency from Syria. I do believe
Speaker 1: he will do that, even though the foreign policy smart
Speaker 1: set doesn't like that. They want, you know, Syria to
Speaker 1: be another forever war. I think that Trump might also
Speaker 1: finally be the one who ends the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope. So you are now entering the Freedom
Speaker 1: Huntechnical Operations Center, all sense of programs Musky Caps strigurely
Speaker 1: need to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for
Speaker 1: the Buck brief figure. We got some time to dive
Speaker 1: into some national security issues on this Friday, and for
Speaker 1: that we are joined by my friend Adam Crado. He
Speaker 1: is a senior writer for National security international Affairs at
Speaker 1: the Washington Freebeacon. He has a piece today about Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Ilahan Omar in which he writes the following, Elan Omar
Speaker 1: holding secret fundraisers with Islamic groups tied to terror. Adam,
Speaker 1: great to have you on. Thanks for having me. I
Speaker 1: appreciate him. All right, what's going on with this freshman congresswoman? Yeah,
Speaker 1: look so so everybody I think is pretty aware of
Speaker 1: her comments accusing Jewish people and pro Israel members of
Speaker 1: Congress of having dual loyalties. You know, these age old
Speaker 1: anti Semitic tropes that she seems quite un apologetic for.
Speaker 1: And I think what's so fascinating is that now with
Speaker 1: the radical anti Israel and anti Semitic left, she seems
Speaker 1: to be raising quite a bit of money. She's become
Speaker 1: a darling to these groups, and they're at least too
Speaker 1: so far that she's spoken to under cover of secrecy.
Speaker 1: That means these events are not open to the press.
Speaker 1: Even if you want to attend, you cannot, and video
Speaker 1: is hidden from the public on it and these two groups.
Speaker 1: One of them is called Islamic Relief that is an
Speaker 1: international charity that for quite some time has been accused
Speaker 1: of having links to Hamas, the terror group, and actually
Speaker 1: has been banned by several countries for these terror tizes,
Speaker 1: including Israel and other ones. The second group you're probably
Speaker 1: familiar with CARE, the Council on American Islamic Relations. CARE
Speaker 1: was an unindicted co conspiracy, a conspirator in a massive
Speaker 1: terror fundraising case. And of course there a rhetoric on
Speaker 1: Israel is what you would expect, accusing the Jewish state
Speaker 1: of war crimes, these kinds of things, so naturally you
Speaker 1: can see why she would be invited to speak. And
Speaker 1: what I find so curious about that is that she's
Speaker 1: actually raising money off of her anti Semitism and anti
Speaker 1: Semitic comments. And I think one of the problems the
Speaker 1: sources I spoke to are pointing at is that this
Speaker 1: has done in secrecy. There's no access to reporters, and
Speaker 1: I think that's very bad. I would like to wonder,
Speaker 1: in addition to what she's saying in public that's anti
Speaker 1: Semitic and anti Israel, what could she possibly be saying
Speaker 1: in private to these primarily Islamic Muslim audiences. I think
Speaker 1: that's concerning. Now, what has changed, Adam in your estimation
Speaker 1: about where the Democrat Party is because we just had
Speaker 1: this whole dust up, this whole kerfuffle over elan Omar's comments.
Speaker 1: Would it comes to Israel? And it seems like from
Speaker 1: what you're telling me, no one nothing has changed to
Speaker 1: know and expects you to change in terms of her
Speaker 1: conduct or really how she talks about Israel. No. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean she's being rewarded by that far left radical
Speaker 1: element of the Democratic Party that actually is becoming more
Speaker 1: of the standard bearer of the party rather than the
Speaker 1: vocal minority. And I'd like to tell people we could
Speaker 1: see this coming right. This is not a surprise. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people are like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: people who are actually members of Congress are making anti
Speaker 1: Semitic and wildly anti Israel comments. But I would point
Speaker 1: to the twenty twelve Democratic National Convention and even further back.
Speaker 1: They removed pro Israel language from their platform. They removed
Speaker 1: the issue of God, and delegates booed the mention of Israel. There. So, look,
Speaker 1: this vocal minority for some time has been gaining traction.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can even look at somebody like Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: this socialist who's a darling of the far Democratic left.
Speaker 1: Two of his top advice, as I recently wrote, our
Speaker 1: longtime anti Israel activists who actually worked at the Center
Speaker 1: for American Progress when it was embroiled in an anti
Speaker 1: Semitism scandal. So you can see where they're plucking these
Speaker 1: people from. And it's not just the new ones like
Speaker 1: Omar and Rashida Talib and Orcasio Cortez's, it's really infiltrated
Speaker 1: the entire Democratic Party as a whole. You have a
Speaker 1: number of Democrat twenty twenty contenders who are not going
Speaker 1: to be going to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Speaker 1: this year, the APAC conference, which usually is kind of
Speaker 1: a who's who in American foreign policy. This this conference.
Speaker 1: Here's betto Aurora saying why he's skipping play sixteen. I'm
Speaker 1: here in South Carolina. I'm here in front of people
Speaker 1: who will decide who the Democratic nominee is, who are
Speaker 1: going to decide this next election, who will decide who
Speaker 1: will defeat President Trump, and then bring this country together.
Speaker 1: That's the best way for me to spend this time,
Speaker 1: so a non answer. Really basically, there's other stuff I
Speaker 1: can do, okay, but you're not going to APACK and
Speaker 1: people are noticing that. And it's not just Robert O'Rourke.
Speaker 1: You also have a number of others including Amy klobaschar
Speaker 1: and who else is on Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Gearson,
Speaker 1: Jilla Brand, Elizabeth Warren. They are not going, I mean
Speaker 1: the name really, the who's who of Democrat candidates. What's
Speaker 1: going on here, Adam. Look, it shows you how the
Speaker 1: party has morphed. Israel used to be very much a
Speaker 1: threshold issue, and that means for both parties. Once the
Speaker 1: plurality of voters saw that a person was sufficiently pro Israel,
Speaker 1: that means they understand the importance and the history of
Speaker 1: the US Israel military alliance fell it benefits both countries.
Speaker 1: People usually moved on. But this is no longer the
Speaker 1: case for the lift and this is why you see
Speaker 1: the divide in APACK. There is more of a reward
Speaker 1: and intentive to boycott with these people. Think is you know,
Speaker 1: these nefarious Jews controlling foreign policy because it resonates with
Speaker 1: that far left wing of the party that is now
Speaker 1: more mobilized and more likely to turn out in an election.
Speaker 1: And I think we could actually find ourselves in a
Speaker 1: place and just looking what's happening in the region now
Speaker 1: where we have a president, a democratic president, who does
Speaker 1: not understand and put value in that US Israel alliance,
Speaker 1: and that's really coming at a bad time considering what's
Speaker 1: happening with Iran in the region, in Syrian, Yemen elsewhere,
Speaker 1: and certainly with its terror proxies like has Bola Hamas.
Speaker 1: They are all increasingly building on Israel's borders, and a
Speaker 1: president who doesn't understand that is really going to jeopardize
Speaker 1: the Jewish state. We're speaking of. Adam Crado of the
Speaker 1: Washington Free Beacon. Adam, can you tell me what happened?
Speaker 1: This didn't get much play today, but something's going on
Speaker 1: because everyone's waiting for the Maula report on you with
Speaker 1: bated breath. What happened? Were they r on today? You
Speaker 1: taught me some interesting stuff went down. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: you're right. People don't pay nearly enough attention to this.
Speaker 1: The Iran nuclear issue still is ongoing while we've pulled
Speaker 1: out of that agreement. Of what we see is Europe
Speaker 1: scrambling to save the deal and actually develop that channel
Speaker 1: ways to continue doing business with Iran and skirt us sanctions.
Speaker 1: Off of that, the State's Department sanctioned a bunch of
Speaker 1: Iranian entities. These are shell companies and individuals, and what
Speaker 1: they do is they operate on an illicit procurement network
Speaker 1: that continues to bring in nuclear technology and nuclear know
Speaker 1: how into the Islamic Republic. So als of that, what
Speaker 1: we've seen now, the State's Department revealed is that in fact,
Speaker 1: Iran never stopped its nuclear weapons program. It merely pressed pause,
Speaker 1: and all of the people, all of the technology, all
Speaker 1: of that infrastructure continues to be working, continues to be there.
Speaker 1: And what we found is all they really need to
Speaker 1: do is play at any given moment and continue that
Speaker 1: march to nuclear weapons. So we see now the Trump
Speaker 1: administration sanctioning their scientists, shell companies that operate this illicit
Speaker 1: procurement network. I would say, covering the State Department for
Speaker 1: a while, I'm usually critical of them, but this is
Speaker 1: actually a very very strong move that's going to help
Speaker 1: choke off those illicit back channels. All right, Saint Department
Speaker 1: doing some good stuffy, Yeah, well, by the way, well,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration also as spoken or President Trump spoken
Speaker 1: about the Golon Heights bring us up a speed on that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the Golon Heights contested territory on Israel's northern border,
Speaker 1: annexed from Syria several decades ago following a war. The
Speaker 1: Golon has kind of sat in limbo for quite some time,
Speaker 1: but we're seeing it become particularly important because of what's
Speaker 1: happening in Syria, the spill out of militants into Lebanon
Speaker 1: and also Syria up on the northern border, and also
Speaker 1: Iranian militants affiliated with his Ball and other militant groups
Speaker 1: also kind of amassing on that border. So the israelities
Speaker 1: have really made a push, not just with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration but with Congress to see a formal recognition that
Speaker 1: this territory is not in limbo, it actually belongs to Israel,
Speaker 1: and that would allow the US to send military equipment,
Speaker 1: particularly for use against these terrorists on the northern border,
Speaker 1: something that of the US government cannot do at this
Speaker 1: point because it doesn't recognize the goal On Heights. So
Speaker 1: more and more that area I've fight there, it's beautiful,
Speaker 1: but more and more that area is unmanageable because of
Speaker 1: the spread of militants from Syria and of course Lebanon
Speaker 1: where his bowler rules. Adam craid to everybody Washington Free
Speaker 1: Beacon to read his latest Adam always great to have
Speaker 1: you all men. Come back soon. Absolutely, it's my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Team will be right back. The United States believes that
Speaker 1: negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders
Speaker 1: with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.
Speaker 1: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be
Speaker 1: based on the nineteen sixty seven lines, would mutually agreed swaps. Yeah,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty seven lines. So relinquishing the goal on heights Obama, huh,
Speaker 1: is that the way you think it should go? This
Speaker 1: is how prime that was. Back in twenty eleven, President Obama,
Speaker 1: who was really a break from the bipartisan foreign policy
Speaker 1: consensus about the US relationship with Israel and especially the
Speaker 1: sensitivities around or the sensitivities with Israel and some of
Speaker 1: its hostile neighbors also known as its neighbors. Obama said that,
Speaker 1: and then net and Yahoo had this to say about Obama.
Speaker 1: The at least self described. I'm sure foreign policy stage.
Speaker 1: Here's Manyah Who's response to Obama fifteen. I think for
Speaker 1: there to be peace, Palestinians will have to accept some
Speaker 1: basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared
Speaker 1: to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back
Speaker 1: to the nineteen sixty seven lines because these lines are
Speaker 1: indefensible because they don't take into account certain changes that
Speaker 1: have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have
Speaker 1: taken place over the last forty four years. So then yeah,
Speaker 1: I was like, yeah, Obama, that was he was saying
Speaker 1: that at the United Nations, so it was in this country.
Speaker 1: He's like, Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, which
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the first time. Well, I bring you the Trumpster,
Speaker 1: my friends, because as of yesterday, Trump with a tweet
Speaker 1: and now it is the policy of the United States
Speaker 1: government at the United States has said that the goal
Speaker 1: on heights, which we just talked to Adam about, which
Speaker 1: is this area of major national security, strategic importance to
Speaker 1: Israel because if the bad guys have it, guess what
Speaker 1: they can from an elevated position, not just surveil, but
Speaker 1: rain down rockets and artillery and all kinds of very
Speaker 1: very bad stuff right into Israel proper. And when you
Speaker 1: have the Syrian Civil War continuing on as is and
Speaker 1: no realistic prospect of that ending anytime soon. Guess what,
Speaker 1: that's unacceptable. So President Trump just said, you know what,
Speaker 1: We're just going to tell our friends Israel that we recognize, well,
Speaker 1: the rest of the world may not recognize that, we
Speaker 1: recognize that Golan is now a part of Israel's territory.
Speaker 1: Fly thirteen. I've been thinking about doing it for a
Speaker 1: long time. It's been a very hard decision for every president.
Speaker 1: No president has done it. This is sovereignty, this is security.
Speaker 1: This is about regional security. It's not about Naton now
Speaker 1: who's reelection. No, I don't. I wouldn't even know about that.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even know about that. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: Hear he's doing okay. I don't know if he's doing
Speaker 1: great right now, but I hear he's doing okay. But
Speaker 1: I would imagine the other side, whoever's against him, is
Speaker 1: also in favor of what I just did. Every president
Speaker 1: has said do that. I'm the one that gets it done.
Speaker 1: He's right, Folks, gotta give credit where it's due. The
Speaker 1: president took action on this issue, and foreign policy is
Speaker 1: one of those realms where the commander in chief has
Speaker 1: a lot of leeway and therefore also a lot of
Speaker 1: responsibility for what happens. It is really in the commander
Speaker 1: in chief's hands what happens in these situations in many cases,
Speaker 1: and you know, this is just another time when Trump
Speaker 1: being Trump really pays dividends because other leaders are all,
Speaker 1: we need to have a study and a committee, we
Speaker 1: need to keep talking about this, and no, no, actually,
Speaker 1: this is just what needs to happen. And it reminds
Speaker 1: me of the controversy over moving the embassy to Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: which even from my time in government, I remember people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it would be such a big deal if the US
Speaker 1: ever moves the embassy to Jerusalem, the whole Arab world,
Speaker 1: you know, everyone will be up in arms. And Trump
Speaker 1: came in, he goes, you know what Israel is an ally,
Speaker 1: it's a country. Their capitals Jerusalem. It's always going to
Speaker 1: be Jerusalem. So we're just gonna put the embassy there, Okay, thanks,
Speaker 1: And he was right, he was right. Sometimes cutting through
Speaker 1: the nonsense is in fact, this single most important thing
Speaker 1: that the foreign policy echo chamber should strive for. Right
Speaker 1: sometimes just getting out of this consensus driven opinion making
Speaker 1: and saying here's what needs to go down, here's what
Speaker 1: reality is, and doing it and just take action. That's
Speaker 1: the right move. Trump did that with the embassy, and
Speaker 1: you'll notice the whole Middle East isn't in flames. Oh no,
Speaker 1: they moved the embassy to Jerusalem. I mean they used
Speaker 1: to have a consulate there and the embassy was in
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv. But your embassy is supposed to be in
Speaker 1: the capital city. So yes, they're symbolism to it. And
Speaker 1: now the symbolism is the right symbolism, which is that
Speaker 1: the embassy is in the capital city of Israel. That's
Speaker 1: just the way it should be, the way it is
Speaker 1: now because of Trump. And now with the goalon hights,
Speaker 1: the same thing happened. So I mean, I just tell
Speaker 1: you that there's really very little, there's really very little
Speaker 1: that you can point to when it comes to Trump
Speaker 1: in Israel that he could be doing that, that he
Speaker 1: should be doing differently, if anything. And yet we were
Speaker 1: told all along that oh, it's uh, you know, he
Speaker 1: doesn't know what he's doing and he's gonna make all
Speaker 1: these mistakes. And no, actually, sometimes a person who comes
Speaker 1: in with fresh eyes and common sense and an approach
Speaker 1: that isn't looking for all of you know, all of
Speaker 1: his peers, and the fancy newspapers say, oh what, what
Speaker 1: brilliant state craft? Right? So many of these people we've
Speaker 1: been led to believe are some kind of foreign policy genius,
Speaker 1: they're not. They the results speak for themselves, and the
Speaker 1: results are poor. And when you look back on what
Speaker 1: we were told all along, it was often through this
Speaker 1: prism of the very same people that are part of
Speaker 1: that foreign policy consensus making. Right, everyone's got to agree
Speaker 1: this is a good idea. Well, if you go along
Speaker 1: with that, they write nice things about you. If you don't,
Speaker 1: they write bad things about you. And everyone has an ego,
Speaker 1: especially politicians. And so there's this, well this understandable drive
Speaker 1: for people to do what they think they'll be praised
Speaker 1: for doing. Trump moved the embassy. It was the right move,
Speaker 1: move the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. And now
Speaker 1: Trump has decided to just push aside all the nonsense
Speaker 1: and say, Golon Heights, Israeli territory. Well done. Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe not getting everything right all the time on all things.
Speaker 1: But on this one, let's call it. Let's call it
Speaker 1: like it is. He got it done. I'm the one
Speaker 1: that gets it done. Oh, she's on the cover of
Speaker 1: Time magazine. Everybody aoc Alexandria o'casio Cortez, and I love this, uh,
Speaker 1: this game that they play of Why you're conservative so
Speaker 1: obsessed with her? Why is the left so obsessed with her?
Speaker 1: Why has she become such an icon of progressivism without
Speaker 1: really doing much of anything and without knowing much of anything. Well,
Speaker 1: that never slows down places like Time magazine that has
Speaker 1: written a over three thousand word just to call it
Speaker 1: a puff pieces, an insult to puff pieces. But she
Speaker 1: complained in this in this piece which was which was astonishing.
Speaker 1: That quote. An entire generation which is now becoming one
Speaker 1: of the largest electorates in America, came of age and
Speaker 1: never saw American prosperity. I have never seen that or
Speaker 1: experienced it really in my adult life. That's that's a
Speaker 1: quote from this article on Ocasio Cortez, and you know,
Speaker 1: the piece then talks about how she took out loans
Speaker 1: when she went to bu She graduated in twenty eleven
Speaker 1: with twenty five thousand dollars in student debt. Then she
Speaker 1: went and worked at an educational nonprofit and did some
Speaker 1: side gigs as a bartender, and through her twenties lived
Speaker 1: paycheck to paycheck. Okay, everybody, I lived paycheck to paycheck
Speaker 1: throughout my twenties as well, and was not making very
Speaker 1: much money at all. I don't understand how this is
Speaker 1: some big sob story, or rather that it would justify
Speaker 1: the feeling, the sentiment that she expressed here that there's
Speaker 1: never been real prosperity and her in her adult lifetime.
Speaker 1: That's just that's just a bizarre statement. It just flies
Speaker 1: in the face of reality. Why would she think that. Look,
Speaker 1: I've got complaints too. You know, the boomers never want
Speaker 1: to leave their jobs. They've got too much debt. They
Speaker 1: have to service the debt. They want to stay in
Speaker 1: their cushy positions. They don't want to retire. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of so there's not as much headroom
Speaker 1: in a lot of places, and the industry is changing
Speaker 1: because of technology much more rapidly than it was in
Speaker 1: previous decades. That is also the case, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of things that we can point to the housing market.
Speaker 1: You know, the joke that I tell sometimes is the
Speaker 1: one thing you know, millennials can't ruin is the housing
Speaker 1: market because they can't get into the housing market. All
Speaker 1: all of these things are are fair points for discussion.
Speaker 1: But this country and the benefits that we have now
Speaker 1: as a result of the wealth that has been created,
Speaker 1: you know, we're spoiled. I mean we are spoiled in
Speaker 1: this country now. We live in a time and it
Speaker 1: depends on also how you want to gauge it, right,
Speaker 1: if you want to look at this through the full
Speaker 1: scope of human history. The average American, the average American
Speaker 1: is so healthy, well fed, well off and comfortable that
Speaker 1: you would make a medieval king green with envy, isn't
Speaker 1: that is? That's the color your term when you're envious, right,
Speaker 1: Green with jealousy, Green with envy. So thank you, John,
Speaker 1: just making sure you know we are able to walk
Speaker 1: around now and order whatever product we want want off
Speaker 1: the foam we have that has more computing power than
Speaker 1: the entire you know, NATO Alliance in nineteen fifty did
Speaker 1: and talk to people all over the world for almost
Speaker 1: no cost, read anything we want to read, usually for free,
Speaker 1: learn anything we want to learn, usually for free, and
Speaker 1: you know, have a video instant video con tap with
Speaker 1: loved ones almost you know it, certainly anywhere in the
Speaker 1: United States, almost anywhere in the world these days, and
Speaker 1: are more able than ever to move around and work
Speaker 1: from home and all. You know, so there's so much
Speaker 1: that any you look at the cost of a few
Speaker 1: things have gotten really bad. Healthcare and education, and oh
Speaker 1: that's right, those are two areas where there's a lot
Speaker 1: of government regulation, intervention, oversight. But consumer products are incredibly inexpensive.
Speaker 1: But see, here's the thing. People don't like to hear
Speaker 1: about how things are good. People don't like to hear it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you may right now, I don't know any
Speaker 1: like aah buck, you know it's not that good. Look,
Speaker 1: We've all got stuff, you know. I mean, I woke
Speaker 1: up this morning and my ankle just really hurts for
Speaker 1: no reason. And you know, stuff happens, right, We've all
Speaker 1: got our things, you know, we all have our struggles
Speaker 1: that I'm not trying to say, oh, everything is great.
Speaker 1: Just be quiet. You're lucky. You're not, you know, dying
Speaker 1: of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: not a helpful frame of reference. Either. But for Jasio
Speaker 1: Cortez to say that there's no American prosperity, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just that's just silly. I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: a I think you could say, an objectively stupid and
Speaker 1: bizarre thing to say. And yet she is still hailed
Speaker 1: as somebody who really gets this generation coming up. And
Speaker 1: I do worry a little bit that the millennials who
Speaker 1: are beneath, who are who are below me in the
Speaker 1: age bracket, you know, not quite the graybeard that I am.
Speaker 1: The millennials who are coming up because they're idols, you know,
Speaker 1: in politics and in media, have moved so far left.
Speaker 1: Yet they're going to believe this stuff. They're going to
Speaker 1: believe that America is this country of deprivation now compared
Speaker 1: to what it should be when you have more, Give
Speaker 1: me a metric and I'll show you, if not that metric,
Speaker 1: something very similar to it that proves that this country is.
Speaker 1: We are getting wealthier and more osperus all the time.
Speaker 1: It's just happening. And now it won't go on a
Speaker 1: straight line. I do think that we're due for our
Speaker 1: recession of some kind soon, and my worry is that
Speaker 1: that recession will be politically exploited by the Left. The
Speaker 1: timing will be perfect for a Sanders or Occasio Cortes
Speaker 1: like person to come along and say, see, you know,
Speaker 1: the fat cats were lying to you all along, and
Speaker 1: now we're gonna we're gonna really, you know, soak it
Speaker 1: or soak them and stick it to them. You could
Speaker 1: soak it to them. I guess that'd be kind of
Speaker 1: a fun. Sister and is a word, by the way,
Speaker 1: found that out? Yes, oh did we I did google
Speaker 1: that when I was on Arrow. Okay, just making sure
Speaker 1: everyone knows. Sister is a word. You just don't hear
Speaker 1: it very often, but there has to be another, a
Speaker 1: word like brethren. And we've we've actually made up a
Speaker 1: few words on the show that I think should be
Speaker 1: entered into the you know, Miriam or Websters or whichever
Speaker 1: dictionary people think is the best one. So AOC gets
Speaker 1: to go around and say things that are just untrue
Speaker 1: and no one will really challenge her. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's a very clear symbol of the intellectual bankruptcy
Speaker 1: of the Left that they have as their most prominent
Speaker 1: intellectual somebody who is an anti intellectual and doesn't even
Speaker 1: know it. She's not saying yeah, I don't read a
Speaker 1: lot of books, but you know, I've got a good
Speaker 1: gut instinct on this matter. She's somebody who talks about
Speaker 1: these issues in the language of a person who wants
Speaker 1: to be considered smart, but does not actually have the
Speaker 1: knowledge to back any of it up. And that is,
Speaker 1: you know, what's really concerning isn't what you know, it's
Speaker 1: what you know that ain't so. And that is the
Speaker 1: case with Okazio Cortez and the way she talks about
Speaker 1: socialism and a whole host of issues that are associated
Speaker 1: with it, so that millennials have never tasted did prosperity,
Speaker 1: don't know, it's we're quite prosperous. I mean that, you know,
Speaker 1: the housing market, which the government has also been very
Speaker 1: involved in. I have some criticisms of how the government
Speaker 1: has decided to make housing almost a right in this country,
Speaker 1: and there have been parts of that are that are problematic.
Speaker 1: There have been aspects of that that you know, almost
Speaker 1: melted down the economy before. But sure enough, things are
Speaker 1: things are actually going okay right now. And I just
Speaker 1: wish that we could get one interviewer to sit down
Speaker 1: with Okazio Quartz and ask her some real questions about
Speaker 1: some real things. Just one one interviewer would be nice,
Speaker 1: you know, say, okay, so how are we going to
Speaker 1: pay for these things? What do you really think we
Speaker 1: should do? Do you think that she could manage to
Speaker 1: get through an interview on the Green New Deal without
Speaker 1: a complete meltdown? I think the answer is no, because
Speaker 1: she doesn't understand the science, she doesn't understand the economics.
Speaker 1: It's just all all part of the cultural left right.
Speaker 1: The left believes in climate change, they believe in this
Speaker 1: Green New Deal, this kind of feel good ism in
Speaker 1: place of knowledge, experience, and history. That is, that's a
Speaker 1: troubling thing. And you see different points, not just in
Speaker 1: our history but in history more generally. When you have
Speaker 1: young and foolish people who are able to rally the
Speaker 1: masses behind foolish ideas, we had to do a bad place.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I want to talk to you about Sweden
Speaker 1: a little bit and socialism and how Sweden is not
Speaker 1: a socialist country. I'll make the case coming up. It's
Speaker 1: always fun when I see an article out there that
Speaker 1: deals with the subject in some detail that I've talked
Speaker 1: you about here on the show. Capitalism Saved Sweden is
Speaker 1: this piece that I saw that from the American Institute
Speaker 1: for Economic Research. You've heard me say this, I'm sure
Speaker 1: many times, and is one of those moments when I
Speaker 1: guess I'll be repeating myself for a second. But Sweden
Speaker 1: is not a socialist country. Folks, do not listen to
Speaker 1: the left wing Democrats who try to tell you otherwise.
Speaker 1: Do not listen to them. Sweden is not a left
Speaker 1: wing country. Sweden is in fact a very free market
Speaker 1: and capitalist oriented country that also has a large social
Speaker 1: welfare state or large safety net, however you want to
Speaker 1: say it. That's what the truth or Sweden is now Sweden.
Speaker 1: In this piece, it's written by Michael Munger, and he
Speaker 1: goes into some detail here about how Democrats play this
Speaker 1: game and they've really been doing it since the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen I'm sorry twenty yes, twenty sixteen election, when Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders was pejoratively referred to by people like me as
Speaker 1: you know, the mayor of Stockholm, because they'd say, oh,
Speaker 1: we can't do universal healthcare, we can't do this or that,
Speaker 1: because you know, they would say, look at Sweden, look
Speaker 1: at Denmark, and then we're supposed to accept that. Well,
Speaker 1: then clearly, if it works there, it can work here.
Speaker 1: But what works there isn't what democrats say works there,
Speaker 1: and in fact, and this is where this piece really
Speaker 1: comes in handy about how capitalism saves Sweden. Sweden was
Speaker 1: in the seventies a more accurately described as a socialist country.
Speaker 1: You had a lot of government control of industry, so
Speaker 1: the government was running large sectors of industry. Essentially, the
Speaker 1: government was running businesses, very important, very large businesses, and
Speaker 1: unsurprisingly doing a terrible job of it. And he gives
Speaker 1: us definition here of state ownership and control of the
Speaker 1: means of production, state direction of production decisions, and direct
Speaker 1: state control of education and employment decisions of individuals. That's socialism,
Speaker 1: all right, And then he tries to, in this very
Speaker 1: astute analysis break down the differences between socialism and capitalism.
Speaker 1: But we're going to have to really do a good
Speaker 1: job going into this election season understanding what's what when
Speaker 1: it comes to socialism and capitalism, because if we get
Speaker 1: lazy with the definitions and with our analysis, the other
Speaker 1: side is going to get away with a lot. Sweden
Speaker 1: was a socialist country in the seventies and couldn't make
Speaker 1: it work. And then decided to become a very free
Speaker 1: market based economy. The idea was, if you let the
Speaker 1: markets decide economic activity in the country, you're going to
Speaker 1: be much much wealthier, much more efficient. Everyone will be
Speaker 1: better off. And then with that greater wealth and productivity,
Speaker 1: they've decided to have a very large and some would
Speaker 1: say a bit of largess in their social safety system
Speaker 1: that they have, which means it's free college and free healthcare.
Speaker 1: Is really what Sweden has that people usually point to
Speaker 1: as something that we could emulate. But if you really
Speaker 1: look at Sweden, it is the sixth most protective country
Speaker 1: in the world when it comes to private property rights.
Speaker 1: The US is the twenty fifth most protective. Sweden is
Speaker 1: the nineteenth most capitalist country in the country. Based on
Speaker 1: the metrics assessed in this piece from the Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: Index of Economic Freedom Freedom, Sweden is in the top
Speaker 1: fifteen most capitalist nations prout shrewd and shrewd and shrewden
Speaker 1: in terms of property rights, financial freedom, and business freedom.
Speaker 1: Most sectors are largely unregulated, and the freedom to move
Speaker 1: capital make Sweden among the most capitalist nations in the world.
Speaker 1: Piece goes on quote Sweden fully privatize his pension system
Speaker 1: moving defined benefit to defined contribution. There's a means tested
Speaker 1: add on guaranteed pension top up for the least well off.
Speaker 1: But the first line system is personal pension accounts invested
Speaker 1: in one of these seven hundred private index funds managed
Speaker 1: by private fund managers. It is the most privatized pension
Speaker 1: system by far in all of Europe. Sweden has a
Speaker 1: one one hundred percent universal voucher system for education. Folks.
Speaker 1: Sweden rejected socialism and decided that it would really in
Speaker 1: the eighties and nineties go on a very free market
Speaker 1: and pro capitalism path and has become a very well
Speaker 1: off country as a result. But when you look at
Speaker 1: the way business itself is conducted in Sweden, it is
Speaker 1: free market, it is not directed by the state. It
Speaker 1: is in no way socialist. They just have a redistribution
Speaker 1: of income via high taxation to pay for a large
Speaker 1: welfare state. Now the other part, So that's that's one
Speaker 1: important point here that we have to get down. And
Speaker 1: Sweden is not a socialist country. People who say it
Speaker 1: is don't know what they're talking about, and it just
Speaker 1: as a country that has is very free market but
Speaker 1: has a large social welfare state. You've heard me say
Speaker 1: this before, but this is an in depth analysis here
Speaker 1: at this American Institute for Economic Research piece. You know,
Speaker 1: this is one of these wonky think tank pieces that
Speaker 1: I come across that's really really useful, and I think
Speaker 1: this will be important for you when you're talking to
Speaker 1: your friends, especially if you know you've got you're gonna
Speaker 1: have that friend. I don't care where you are across
Speaker 1: the country is the hey man, I have Bernie Sanders supporter,
Speaker 1: and I just think we just free this and free that,
Speaker 1: and Sweden does it. In Sweden's great. You can say, well,
Speaker 1: Sweden's not socialism, my friend, Sweden is not a socialist country,
Speaker 1: and very few socialist countries well refer to themselves as
Speaker 1: stalinist socialist countries. They want to be democratic socialism they want.
Speaker 1: But the main difference, for example, between what happened in
Speaker 1: Venezuela from an economic perspective from a government control perspective
Speaker 1: in Sweden is that in Venezuela the government ran industries
Speaker 1: and set price controls. The government said you can charge
Speaker 1: this for this product, didn't care what the market said.
Speaker 1: That caused enormous pressures on different businesses that then cause
Speaker 1: them to collapse. When they collapse and did not have
Speaker 1: products to sell, the government blamed the greedy capitalists who
Speaker 1: were not allowed to set their own prices in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: And that's how you had the downward spiral. It was
Speaker 1: a top down spiral because it was a truly socialist
Speaker 1: economy that they that the Majuro government was operating, or
Speaker 1: at least there were aspects of it that were accurately
Speaker 1: described as socialist. So you know, Sweden is not what
Speaker 1: they say it is. Don't let them get away with it.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, the middle class in
Speaker 1: Sweden pays about sixty percent in taxes, So understand that
Speaker 1: part of this argument, and you'll be able to, i think,
Speaker 1: fight back against all the people that say, oh, we
Speaker 1: could afford this. It's just the evil, greedy Republicans don't
Speaker 1: want to do this. Oh no, no, no, no, it's
Speaker 1: not going to be the millionaires and the billionaires who
Speaker 1: are paying for all this. You will be paying for
Speaker 1: free college for everyone, free healthcare for everyone, including illegal
Speaker 1: aliens by the way, and the one hundred thousand a
Speaker 1: month that are coming across the border right now. You
Speaker 1: will be paying for all of that we paying for
Speaker 1: all of the largess of the federal bureaucracy, of the
Speaker 1: Department of Education, of the university system that has become
Speaker 1: so bloated and I think turning out in so many
Speaker 1: cases such an inferior product when it comes to real education.
Speaker 1: But at least at least we should all be on
Speaker 1: the same page with It's not a socialist country. And
Speaker 1: if you want the welfare state that you have in Sweden,
Speaker 1: you better start telling everybody you're gonna pay sixty percent
Speaker 1: in taxes. Let's see how that goes over in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll call, man. It's starting
Speaker 1: to get nice outside. Everybody. It's a roll call for
Speaker 1: the springtime. I have to say, am looking forward to
Speaker 1: being able to walk around in a T shirt again.
Speaker 1: It'll be it'll be a nice change of pace. Put
Speaker 1: away all the heavy winter clothing, the winter boots and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. Let's get to your thoughts, elks. We're
Speaker 1: doing a double roll call so we can hear from
Speaker 1: everybody we can today, Facebook dot com, slash Buck saxon
Speaker 1: if you want your thoughts to be heard. Coast to Coast,
Speaker 1: which is also the name a radio show. By the way,
Speaker 1: Lanny Rights, I'm sorry, Buck, but I'm so sick of
Speaker 1: hearing Betto's name uttered every day. Lanny, I'm like, suck
Speaker 1: of it too, because I just want everybody to hold
Speaker 1: hands and just be friends with each other. Robert Francis
Speaker 1: O'Rourke is his name. I've heard other conservatives call him
Speaker 1: by that name, and doctor seb Gorka calls him Bob.
Speaker 1: I wish you would too. I heart your show. Don't
Speaker 1: be mad, but you know you gotta stop talking about Betto. Alright, alright, alright, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: we have a little fun with Betto. It was really
Speaker 1: the week of the Betto, and maybe next week will
Speaker 1: be the week of the Yang or the week of
Speaker 1: the Harris or something. Somebody else will be in the
Speaker 1: center of the in the center of the storm. Dwayne
Speaker 1: Buck refers to Buck his buck all the time. Well, Dwayne,
Speaker 1: I know that's kind of the joke, is it, my friend,
Speaker 1: Ken Buck, FYI, if you get a chance to this
Speaker 1: lecture by activist David Hogg, I will not listen to
Speaker 1: the lecture by activist David Hogg because he does not
Speaker 1: know anything and I do not care what virtue signaling
Speaker 1: and nonsense he cares to spew. I've heard enough. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know that he doesn't know what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: and he's a nasty and dishonest person. So there you go.
Speaker 1: Kent buck Avit podcast listener, been listening since your Real
Speaker 1: News days. Recently, I've been debating with my conservative friends
Speaker 1: about the crisis on our southern border, and one of
Speaker 1: my friends sent me a link to your op ed
Speaker 1: on The Hill on the same subject. Your Peace helped
Speaker 1: make my point that due to the dangers of fental
Speaker 1: and migration en mass, we have an emergency the likes
Speaker 1: of which the US has not had to deal with before.
Speaker 1: Thanks for all you do. Keep up the good fight,
Speaker 1: Shields High Well. Kent from oss original Saturday Squad. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with me all these years,
Speaker 1: and I'm so glad that the piece I wrote for
Speaker 1: The Hill dot Com was able to help you make
Speaker 1: a sound argument on this issue. The border is in
Speaker 1: very bad shape right now. We do not have a
Speaker 1: secure border at all, and in fact, the laws are
Speaker 1: being exploited in order to make sure that we do
Speaker 1: not have an orderly We don't have the immigration system
Speaker 1: that we have been promised that's what's really going on.
Speaker 1: We don't have the immigration system that the American people
Speaker 1: generally think that we do, and that should really concern everyone.
Speaker 1: That should be something that gets all people who care
Speaker 1: about the direction of this country in the future of
Speaker 1: this country paying much more at tension. Chris definitely a
Speaker 1: deal breaker if she is a Democrat in dating l ol,
Speaker 1: have a great weekend. Thanks. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I can agree with that. Sometimes the political
Speaker 1: passion turns into the other passion, you know, sometimes it's
Speaker 1: good to be talking to a democrat. I mean, I
Speaker 1: also work in an organization where there's a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats around me at the Hill, so and I've become
Speaker 1: very close friends with a number of them. So I've
Speaker 1: I've learned to to get along with Democrats. I think
Speaker 1: it depends on what kind of democrat you know they're
Speaker 1: they're the Democrats that you can have conversations with the
Speaker 1: Democrats you can't. If people really believe that the world's
Speaker 1: going to end in ten years from climate change, then
Speaker 1: I think it's really it is tough at that point
Speaker 1: to have a meaningful exchange with them. It is difficult
Speaker 1: to find a common ground there. But if somebody really
Speaker 1: believes that we should have a more Norwegian or Swedish
Speaker 1: style safety net than what we already have, and they
Speaker 1: believe in I don't know, free college, maybe I can.
Speaker 1: I can at least talk to them about that. And
Speaker 1: these are ideas that have big downsides that most Democrats
Speaker 1: just pretend to not understand. But I can kind of,
Speaker 1: I can get there. I can at least have that
Speaker 1: chat with him. Richard, Right, Shields Hie Theater nine thousand
Speaker 1: must happen. It sounds amazing. I would love to see
Speaker 1: you with some Special Forces folks critique movies, or what
Speaker 1: about you with cop movies and some YPD folks? Are
Speaker 1: you with some CIA folks? Many options, keep making awesome things.
Speaker 1: Shields him, you know, Richard, I love the idea, and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get down to do an event with
Speaker 1: a former Special Operations guy in Florida where we're going
Speaker 1: to bring in another a marine and we're trying to
Speaker 1: do something kind of like what I laid out. It's
Speaker 1: just a question of scheduling it, but I do think
Speaker 1: it'd be a lot of fun. To be fair on
Speaker 1: the MYPD side, I was never a cop I was
Speaker 1: never actually a police officer or detective, so my experience
Speaker 1: was very specific to working as a counter terrorism specialist
Speaker 1: in the Intelligence division. So it was really it was
Speaker 1: an analytic role. It was a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of meetings, a lot of conversations with lawyers, stuff like that.
Speaker 1: But still would be cool and I'd love to do that.
Speaker 1: We have to sit down with some of the old
Speaker 1: if I could get some of the crusty old detectives
Speaker 1: and sergeants that I know from the NYPDA to do
Speaker 1: that with like a cop show, that would be a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. But would have to edit it before
Speaker 1: and it would take a little production work. But I'm
Speaker 1: glad you liked the basic idea Autumn, right, Buck, love
Speaker 1: the show Autumn. You have fantastic taste in radio programming.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for good, historically accurate books to read. I
Speaker 1: remember you talking about one that was on Cortes. What
Speaker 1: was it called? When I google books about Cortez, the
Speaker 1: top suggestion was books about Alexandria Ocasio Quartet is not
Speaker 1: sure I'd have the ability to hold my lunch down
Speaker 1: if I if I had to read that. Now, the
Speaker 1: book that I read, you know, which which I think
Speaker 1: that you will. You will enjoy is and I'm pulling
Speaker 1: up right now so I give you the exact title.
Speaker 1: I mean it is. The name of Cortes is in
Speaker 1: the name of the book, obviously, but it's uh yeah.
Speaker 1: Conquistador Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma and the Last Stand of
Speaker 1: the Aztecs by Buddy Levy is the book that I read.
Speaker 1: It's a really good read. I mean, you will enjoy it. Cortes,
Speaker 1: You can make a case, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: strong case that Hernan Cortes was the most like like,
Speaker 1: beat the odds from a military campaign perspective, beat the
Speaker 1: odds more than any other figure in history. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that's a definitive statement, but you could certainly
Speaker 1: make the case that what he did to show up
Speaker 1: with a few hundred guys and take on a massive
Speaker 1: empire with with millions of inhabitants and straight up conquer
Speaker 1: it is astonishing. And it took a lot more than
Speaker 1: just the guns and steel and horses that they showed
Speaker 1: up with, though of that was certainly very very helpful. Autumn.
Speaker 1: I'm also a big fan of the of Roger Crowley,
Speaker 1: who does books on really the period of the Renaissance
Speaker 1: in the Mediterranean and the wars between Christian and Muslim
Speaker 1: states and the Christian Muslim world. That my favorite is
Speaker 1: Empire of the Seas. But he also wrote a book
Speaker 1: on the fall of content Toople that I've read. I'd
Speaker 1: really so if you go on Amazon, look up Roger Crowley.
Speaker 1: He's a British guy. He's written some really great books
Speaker 1: and very much enjoy those. Richard. Enjoy catching your show
Speaker 1: whenever I can. I also want to let you know
Speaker 1: that I live in a neighboring community of South Bend
Speaker 1: and Mayor Pete Buddha Chik. I've heard you struggle to
Speaker 1: pronounce his name, and many in the media do, since
Speaker 1: we hear it all the time on our local news,
Speaker 1: I wanted to help you out. It should be pronounced Buddha, judge,
Speaker 1: Buddha judge. Okay, you can hear it. Pronounce the link
Speaker 1: on the right at the beginning of this video. All right,
Speaker 1: Buddha judge, Buddha judge. I can do that, all right.
Speaker 1: I got that one. A lot of hard names to pronounce.
Speaker 1: It's Beto, not beeto, Buddha judge, not Buddha jig. Who
Speaker 1: else is Kamala not Kamala. There's a lot. There's a
Speaker 1: lot that you have to pay attention to. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a tricky business. I work in this media world.
Speaker 1: You know, it's difficult stuff. Tomas writes, Beeto, I see,
Speaker 1: I just did it, Beto Darnet buck code read yourself.
Speaker 1: Beto is a valley girl before your time. Maybe no, Thomas,
Speaker 1: I know what a valley girl like tale Like, I mean,
Speaker 1: like whatever, because like I just want to go shopping
Speaker 1: and every place you go has valet. Yeah, I know
Speaker 1: what valley girls are. I grew up watching so many
Speaker 1: movies in the nineties, and in the nineties there was
Speaker 1: nothing cooler than California and Los Angeles specifically, like everyone wanted,
Speaker 1: you know, Beverly Hills nine O two and oh and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. LA was the Promised Land. Now LA's nice,
Speaker 1: but a lot of traffic And I am not somebody
Speaker 1: who enjoys sitting around in a car and not moving fast,
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure that that's the move for me.
Speaker 1: We will do some more Role Call team coming up
Speaker 1: in just a moment. Double dose of role call is
Speaker 1: your way right now. It's not coming your way. It
Speaker 1: is here, Matthew. Democrats want to lower the voting age
Speaker 1: to sixteen because sixteen year old kids are so mature.
Speaker 1: But Democrat, But Democrats, Democrats. We could start called, oh
Speaker 1: are you a Democrat? Democrats say guns sales should be
Speaker 1: raised from eighteen to twenty one because young adults are
Speaker 1: too immature. I say, put it on the same ballot.
Speaker 1: If you vote sixteen year olds are mature, then they
Speaker 1: get to vote and buy guns. We'll see, Matthew. What
Speaker 1: you have is called a principle, or you have consistency.
Speaker 1: And liberals don't aspire to consistency. They embrace hypocrisy as
Speaker 1: long as it is on the pathway to power, because
Speaker 1: there's no way around that. It is an inconsistent thing
Speaker 1: to say that you should vote when you're sixteen, but
Speaker 1: you can't own a gun until you're twenty one. There's
Speaker 1: no And I will say it right now before some
Speaker 1: of you said, well, book, what about the drinking age.
Speaker 1: I believe the drinking age should be eighteen. I believe
Speaker 1: that eighteen is an adult. An adult is an adult
Speaker 1: as an adult, eighteen is an adult. And I think
Speaker 1: that the drinking age being twenty one really allows for
Speaker 1: a kind of fetishization of it's a tough word to say,
Speaker 1: of drinking on college campuses, and it becomes this kind
Speaker 1: of naughty, oo cool thing to do. I also think
Speaker 1: that our country could probably have some really worthwhile conversations
Speaker 1: in general about alcohol across the board. I think that
Speaker 1: alcohol enjoyed the right way is a very nice thing.
Speaker 1: I like a glass of wine, as you know. I
Speaker 1: like good tequila. But when I think back to the
Speaker 1: I think back to the way that things operated on
Speaker 1: the college campus that I was on, at least when
Speaker 1: I was a student, and it was just nuts. I mean,
Speaker 1: people were functioning alcoholics for four years, really drinking. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're getting wasted four or five nights a week,
Speaker 1: that's not normal. It's not good for you. And I
Speaker 1: would offer that there should be a much better, much
Speaker 1: better conversation for young people about how look, it slows
Speaker 1: you down, especially if you're really into being physical and active.
Speaker 1: It's terrible for you. And there's all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: Drinking too much. I'm talking about not just drinking, drinking
Speaker 1: to excess. Anything to excess is bad. That's why you
Speaker 1: call it excess. Although I don't know. Maybe the show
Speaker 1: suffers from an excess of awesome and we just have
Speaker 1: to accept that. Jim just want to drop a line
Speaker 1: saying I'm shields high. Well, Jim, I'm with you man.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, appreciate you writing in good to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Much much obliged. Let's see here, Marina
Speaker 1: rights freedom dividend. If they're going to give out all
Speaker 1: that money, why not just end income taxes. Besides, isn't
Speaker 1: the standard income deduction twelve thousand dollars that's got a
Speaker 1: play a role in the big picture where they're going
Speaker 1: with all this. For those who earn enough to file
Speaker 1: and take the deduction, consider that you're consider that your
Speaker 1: twelve thousand oss. Marina. Yeah, Marina. Look the freedom dividend,
Speaker 1: which Andrew Yang, whom I interviewed today at some length.
Speaker 1: It's an idea that appeals to people. It's always though,
Speaker 1: when you start to get to the costs and how
Speaker 1: you'd enact this, that things get yes, more complicated, more difficult.
Speaker 1: It sounds great, give people money, they'll spend money. Everyone
Speaker 1: has some money. No one's going to be destitute anymore.
Speaker 1: But we do have a lot of social welfare programs
Speaker 1: in place. Already we have a trillion dollar well fair state,
Speaker 1: and yet we still have people in poverty in this country.
Speaker 1: Poverty itself is a very interesting area of study for
Speaker 1: social scientists. Every society will always have people that are
Speaker 1: considered poor and that will be considered impoverished in some form,
Speaker 1: I think in many In many ways, the best thing
Speaker 1: you can hope for is the elimination of true poverty
Speaker 1: like subsistence living where people are dangerously close to dying
Speaker 1: a preventable disease on a regular basis, not having enough
Speaker 1: food to eat a dangerous level, not having a safe
Speaker 1: place to live. Because the version, for example, of poverty
Speaker 1: in America is very different from what you'd get and
Speaker 1: say Bangladesh, our version of poverty, or in West Africa
Speaker 1: poverty that I have seen up close and personal myself,
Speaker 1: that is in a completely different league from what is
Speaker 1: considered poverty here in the United States. Brian rights, but
Speaker 1: keep up the great work and my business I tend
Speaker 1: to be in the Bahamas, I deal a lot of clients.
Speaker 1: I noticed a disturbing trend with regards to Chinese interests
Speaker 1: in the country so very close to our shores. In
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, the Chinese came into Nassau with Chinese labor
Speaker 1: and built a soccer stadium as part of their stadium
Speaker 1: diplomacy program they do all over the world. Now they
Speaker 1: have built a deep water port sub base down there,
Speaker 1: a brand new secure marina with twenty foot high electrified
Speaker 1: fencing topped by razor wire and huge lights to eliminate
Speaker 1: a massive concrete pad. There are two large barracks. My
Speaker 1: unknown friend tried to get close on his boat and
Speaker 1: was waived to leave immediately by a guard in a
Speaker 1: military uniform. China is prepping for war in twenty years. Sadly,
Speaker 1: I'm not joking. China builds port in the Bahamas. I
Speaker 1: gotta look into this interesting, Brian. Yeah, and China is
Speaker 1: taking the long view, and we are not in this country.
Speaker 1: And China wants to supplant us as the global hedgemon.
Speaker 1: And we think that China just to be friends. That's
Speaker 1: not the case. And we're going to learn the hard
Speaker 1: way that long term planning beats short term handshaking any
Speaker 1: day of the week. Bob right, Oh, I used to
Speaker 1: work for the ncuble A, so need to jump in
Speaker 1: on your rant On College athletics. First of all, I
Speaker 1: believe nine of the NCAA revenue, which is really only
Speaker 1: from basketball football championship is outside the NCAA is distributed
Speaker 1: back out to the schools. The remainder is used to
Speaker 1: run all eighty seven championships and enforcement. As you can imagine,
Speaker 1: D three women's water polo is not a moneymaker. Also
Speaker 1: keep them on the title nine factors in here, So
Speaker 1: any money you spend against men's sports, you have to
Speaker 1: spend equally in women's sports. Essentially, you can fund men's
Speaker 1: football and basketball and then twenty women's sports and you
Speaker 1: will have to drop all other men's sports to equal out. Sorry,
Speaker 1: need it to let you know, No, Bob, I know that.
Speaker 1: I also though, just to have a this is a
Speaker 1: philosophical difference that I have with people who think that
Speaker 1: they should be changing admission standards to bring in athletes
Speaker 1: at schools. I disagree with that. I think that that
Speaker 1: should not be done. Then there's the broader conversation about
Speaker 1: does this actually make money for the schools? Usually it
Speaker 1: does not. But I'll have to leave that. Everybody. You've
Speaker 1: got some homework this week, and your homework. Have a
Speaker 1: fantastic week. And really enjoy yourself. Rest, relax, come back
Speaker 1: on Monday ready for action. Until then, shield tie