Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Michael Cohen testifies on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill, and we don't learn a lot other than
Speaker 1: Democrats suffer from Trump to arrangement syndrome, and they're looking
Speaker 1: to impeach this president under any excuse. Plus, the President
Speaker 1: is trying to stop a possible future nuclear war in Vietnam.
Speaker 1: If anybody wants to pay attention to that, we will.
Speaker 1: That and more coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, America, You're a great American. Again, the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. Remember you guys are down, and
Speaker 1: it makes sense that most of them, all of them,
Speaker 1: says Poles. I just told you I answered your question. Okay,
Speaker 1: which Poles? I want to apologize to each member to
Speaker 1: use Congress as a whole. The last time I appeared
Speaker 1: before Congress, I came to protect mister Trump. Today I
Speaker 1: am here to tell the truth about mister Trump. I
Speaker 1: lied to Congress when mister Trump stopped negotiating the Moscow
Speaker 1: Tower project in Russia. I stated that we stopped negotiating
Speaker 1: in January of twenty sixteen. That was false. Our negotiations
Speaker 1: continued for months later during the campaign. Mister Trump did
Speaker 1: not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not
Speaker 1: how he operates. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, this is one of these days where the
Speaker 1: whole news media, the whole journalism apparatus in this country
Speaker 1: is fixated, fixated on this Cohen testimony on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of Americans don't pay attention to this,
Speaker 1: and rightfully so because really, ultimately it's just such a circus,
Speaker 1: so much in one place that is despicable and disgraceful,
Speaker 1: so many lies here. Yeah, i'man Cohen's a liar. Cohen
Speaker 1: is being forced to engage in a kind of self flagellation,
Speaker 1: kind of ritualized humiliation on TV for the amusement of
Speaker 1: the trump'ter arrangement syndrome. Mob Democrats get to grand stand
Speaker 1: and give these little short speeches about how this and
Speaker 1: that and democracy. And it was one of these days
Speaker 1: where you also are reminded that a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are in Congress just aren't very smart. They're just
Speaker 1: not you know, they just really wanted the job and
Speaker 1: willing to say whatever they had to say to get
Speaker 1: the job. But a lot of members of Congress are
Speaker 1: deeply unimpressive. But Michael Cohen, they set him up to
Speaker 1: do this, the Democrats asked him to do this. He's
Speaker 1: got Lannie Davis close confidante consoliary to the Clintons, Lannie
Speaker 1: Davis there with him, and they're going with this whole Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a redemption story. Oh that's right. Cohen just want
Speaker 1: he just wants to be a better man now he's
Speaker 1: learned his lesson. Whatever they have to say, They are
Speaker 1: going to say here, you know, whatever they have to
Speaker 1: do to try to make this stick. And the whole
Speaker 1: thing's a disgrace. The whole thing is a disgrace. You
Speaker 1: first of all, have a guy who is the personal
Speaker 1: lawyer to the president and he is violating attorney client
Speaker 1: privilege just because there's no proof of any criminal activity
Speaker 1: between Trump and Cohen. And if they can't get him,
Speaker 1: I mean, I have obviously a completely different take on this.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna get from the mainstream media if you
Speaker 1: can't get the President of the United States on something
Speaker 1: when you have his attorney for over a decade just
Speaker 1: doing everything that he can to throw his former client
Speaker 1: into the bus. I mean all ethics, by the way,
Speaker 1: all sense of decency and propriety for a lawyer all
Speaker 1: gone here. But they still can't nail Trump with anything.
Speaker 1: There's still nothing there, and they don't have anything on collusion.
Speaker 1: They don't have anything to prove the Russia hoax was
Speaker 1: real that the Trump administration. Could you imagine if we
Speaker 1: if we had had one lawyer close to Hillary and
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton for the last ten years who decided to
Speaker 1: just straight up flip on them. I mean, give all
Speaker 1: the goods, you know, Hillary and Billy, they'd be going
Speaker 1: away for a long time. And even though the prosecutors
Speaker 1: the Democratic establishment wouldn't want anyone to bring charges against them,
Speaker 1: it would be too obvious. They'd be too much there.
Speaker 1: So if someone with access to what was really happening
Speaker 1: with Hillary and the Clinton Foundation and Bill and I
Speaker 1: was just worth eight hundred thousand for that speech in
Speaker 1: Russia or five hundred thousand or whatever was somebody came forward,
Speaker 1: the Clintons would be would be over and done with
Speaker 1: and sent to prison very very expeditiously. But they've got
Speaker 1: the president's personal attorney coming forward saying everything he can
Speaker 1: to try and destroy this president, and they're not going
Speaker 1: to have any charges. I mean, Cohen said, I'm a
Speaker 1: Shane because I know what Trump is. He is a racist,
Speaker 1: he is a conman, he is a cheat, and yet
Speaker 1: he's a better president than Barack Obama was, or George
Speaker 1: Bush was, or just go down the list. The country
Speaker 1: is doing well. I spoke this week even to some
Speaker 1: friends of mine who are pretty agnostic about politics but
Speaker 1: very very knowledgeable about economics and finance because they work
Speaker 1: in those areas in ways where you have to be
Speaker 1: good at your job. I'm not talking about professors, I'm
Speaker 1: talking about practitioners, and they say, look, I don't agree
Speaker 1: with the president's tone of it, but in terms of
Speaker 1: what he's doing, in terms of the way he's approaching
Speaker 1: capitalism and the economy, it's great. It's really really positive
Speaker 1: for the country. So you know that they can tell
Speaker 1: us as much as they want the Trump is a racist,
Speaker 1: a comment, a cheat, But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: this is coming from a guy who is a known liar.
Speaker 1: But even more importantly than the fact that that Cohen
Speaker 1: is a known liar, a lot of what the testimony
Speaker 1: did today was shoot down some of the craziest conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories out there about Trump. We did get Cohen on
Speaker 1: the record in front of Congress saying he's never been
Speaker 1: in Prague. So a very clearly verifiable part of the
Speaker 1: dossier that was used to get this whole Russia collusion
Speaker 1: farcet going was wrong. And unless you think that Cohen's
Speaker 1: just subjecting himself to additional possible federal criminal charges just
Speaker 1: for giggles at this point. But everything that happened today
Speaker 1: with this, all of the different you know, congressional questioners
Speaker 1: and and everybody who was coming after, they're all part
Speaker 1: of this circus effort to try and create a basis
Speaker 1: for we all know this is going to turn into,
Speaker 1: which is impeachment. They want to impeach this president. That's
Speaker 1: what they want to do. They want to impeach him,
Speaker 1: even if they realize and I think the Democrats know
Speaker 1: this somewhere and their Democrat minds, they know that impeaching
Speaker 1: the president may help him stay in office, impeaching the
Speaker 1: president may be a bad political move. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Democrats can help themselves. I think that they're at
Speaker 1: a point where they just feel like they absolutely. Their
Speaker 1: base demands it. Their base demands that the President United
Speaker 1: States gets impeached. This is now, that this is, These
Speaker 1: are the wages of Trump's arrangement syndrome that we are
Speaker 1: seeing happening right now. Representative Green from Oh wow, I
Speaker 1: talked to him this morning. That's interesting, and then he's
Speaker 1: on the on Capitol Hill answer. But I think it's
Speaker 1: still going on now. I mean the whole thing. I'll
Speaker 1: get into my broad stroke assessment of it in a second,
Speaker 1: but whole thing's kind of a waste of time, honestly,
Speaker 1: because even if they didn't do this, Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to impeach Trump. There's really no new information. There's nothing
Speaker 1: new to work with here. In fact, if anything, it
Speaker 1: just shows that there's if Michael Cohen didn't know about collusion,
Speaker 1: are we really gonna think that there was collusion? Who
Speaker 1: did know? Donald Trump just did this whole thing with
Speaker 1: Russia on his own, didn't didn't talk to anybody, didn't
Speaker 1: What a joke? Any Representative Green is saying though Cohen's
Speaker 1: a liar, which we all know. Play nine. The Democrats
Speaker 1: have vastly limited the scope of this hearing. They've issued
Speaker 1: a gag order to try to tell members of this
Speaker 1: committee what we can and cannot talk about. My colleagues
Speaker 1: on the other side of the aisle claim that they
Speaker 1: want the truth, that they want transparency and fair oversight.
Speaker 1: Yet the Democrats witness to testify before Congress today is
Speaker 1: none other than a scorned man who's going to prison
Speaker 1: for lying to Congress. Let that sink in. He's going
Speaker 1: to prison for lying to Congress, and he's the star
Speaker 1: witness to Congress. If you read the sentencing report on
Speaker 1: mister Cohen, words like deceptive and greedy are scattered throughout
Speaker 1: that report. It paints a picture of a narcissist, a
Speaker 1: bully who cannot tell the truth, whether it's about the
Speaker 1: president or about his own personal life. But today he's
Speaker 1: the majority party's star witness. If the Democrats were after
Speaker 1: the truth, they'd have an honest person here testifying. Now.
Speaker 1: I think most of what Congress and Green there said
Speaker 1: is true, except I would add this. I think Republicans,
Speaker 1: a lot of them that they didn't really do as
Speaker 1: good a job as I would have liked. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans were were weak in their questioning
Speaker 1: here because they should have seen Cohen as an opportunity
Speaker 1: to knock down some of the crazier things that Democrats
Speaker 1: still cling to about Russia collusion, right. I mean the
Speaker 1: fact that it took them as long as it did
Speaker 1: to ask a question about have you ever been to Prague?
Speaker 1: For example? I mean, this should have been asked a
Speaker 1: lot sooner. This should have been known a lot sooner
Speaker 1: on the record, this idea that he was scorned though,
Speaker 1: and this came up quite a bit. It were saying
Speaker 1: that the issue here was that Cohen didn't get the
Speaker 1: White House job that he wanted. I would say even
Speaker 1: CNN and some of the Democrats were like, well, look,
Speaker 1: we all know Cohen wanted a White House job that
Speaker 1: was well known, but that he would be doing all
Speaker 1: this because he didn't get that job. And some Republicans
Speaker 1: seem to take that approach that that's just silly. He's
Speaker 1: doing what he Cohen is trying to trash the president's
Speaker 1: today because he's going to federal prison. He wants some
Speaker 1: sense that the establishment will make room for him when
Speaker 1: he gets out, that he will have made amends in
Speaker 1: the eyes of the very powerful Democrat machine in this country.
Speaker 1: And you know, he's trying to take some of the
Speaker 1: heat off himself as he goes as he goes away,
Speaker 1: I mean, this was his throwing himself on the mercy
Speaker 1: of the left wing machine today, and the left wing
Speaker 1: machine has no mercy. So it's a very bad idea. Now,
Speaker 1: that's what this was. He's nailed on numerous federal charges,
Speaker 1: he's facing years and years in prison. They could have
Speaker 1: gotten him to say whatever they wanted him to say today,
Speaker 1: and that's pretty much what they did. This was a setup,
Speaker 1: as we know. This was the Democrats engaging in politics
Speaker 1: under the guise of oversight. There's no oversight here. They
Speaker 1: were asking him all kinds of stuff about Trump and
Speaker 1: his finances and his taxes, and this was just they
Speaker 1: turned Congress today into one big opo session. It's like
Speaker 1: they made Congress one of those mega panels of imbeciles
Speaker 1: over at c Then you just get to hear all
Speaker 1: this different bashing of Trump. And yes, there were some
Speaker 1: Republicans there that were trying to get better answers, trying
Speaker 1: to push back on this, but by and large, because
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen is the witness, you're gonna get anti Trump lunacy,
Speaker 1: and that was what you got. Not all of It
Speaker 1: went well for Cohen, though for sure Mark Meadows asked
Speaker 1: him about what he was doing with his foreign entities.
Speaker 1: And this is tough, right because we've got how many
Speaker 1: hours of hours and hours and hours of testimony to day,
Speaker 1: But we're gonna spend We're only talking about this a
Speaker 1: little bit the first hour of the show. That's it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna move on to other things. This is not
Speaker 1: that important. I watched it today so that you don't
Speaker 1: have to, and and it already and no one's even
Speaker 1: gonna remember this in a week. The Democrats will just
Speaker 1: refer to Michael Cohen's damaging testimony. Cohen could have showed
Speaker 1: up in like I Hate Trump, and all we'd hear
Speaker 1: for weeks ahead was Democrats saying Michael Cohen's damn damning
Speaker 1: testimony of Donald Trump means that we must, we have
Speaker 1: no choice but to impeach. That's where all this is going.
Speaker 1: It was just mostly blather today. I mean, Debbie Wasserman
Speaker 1: Schultz at one point was asking, well, you can't prove collusion,
Speaker 1: don't have any proof, but do you think it's like
Speaker 1: possible maybe that he colluded with the Russians based on
Speaker 1: you knowing him. That's asking a witness to just wildly speculate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: do you think it's possible you can't prove it? Do
Speaker 1: you think that this person is actually an axe murderer?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no proof of this, But do you think,
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe can you prove he's not an axe murderer? Well,
Speaker 1: I suppose that's one way to go here. There were
Speaker 1: some takeaways from this that I think we'll come up again,
Speaker 1: and that will be helpful for us to dig into
Speaker 1: a bit. We will certainly do that. We'll also talk
Speaker 1: about the fact that the president's trying to negotiate a
Speaker 1: deal that would help avert a major war on the
Speaker 1: Korean peninsula that could have come as soon as who knows,
Speaker 1: a matter of a few years based on what we've
Speaker 1: been seeing. There also Trump's efforts with China. How important
Speaker 1: those are right now? I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff that's happening that really does matter. Michael Cohen talking
Speaker 1: about a payoff of a porn star is not one
Speaker 1: of them. But here we are. The country has been
Speaker 1: so at least the people that believe the Democrats have
Speaker 1: their minds have been so poisoned against this president that
Speaker 1: they can't help, but latch onto every fanatical bit of
Speaker 1: Trump hatred that they can. We've got much more common team,
Speaker 1: Stay with me. I'm concerned about your lives today. Under
Speaker 1: your testimony just a few minutes ago to me, you
Speaker 1: indicated that you had contracts with foreign entities, and yet
Speaker 1: we have a truth and Testimony disclosure film which requires
Speaker 1: you to list those foreign contracts for the last two years,
Speaker 1: and you put na on there. And it's a criminal
Speaker 1: offense to not have that accurately. So when were you
Speaker 1: lying they're in the testimony to me earlier today or
Speaker 1: when you filled out the form. Jemma's time has expired.
Speaker 1: As to coin, you may answer his question and then
Speaker 1: whatever you wanted to say on it is his questions.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately I don't have an answer for his question. Well,
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows is saying that there could be even further
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy at this point for Colin, although I doubt
Speaker 1: anyone's good. I think he referred him to the DOJ
Speaker 1: for failing to fill out that thing about the foreign
Speaker 1: influences correctly. But you know, Cohen's already go into prison,
Speaker 1: so he has nothing to lose here except well, maybe
Speaker 1: shave some time off of his sentence. That's always possible.
Speaker 1: Although in a federal situation you actually can't get parole,
Speaker 1: so the charges are all federal. That wouldn't work. Cohen
Speaker 1: is not a particularly good lawyer, and this is I
Speaker 1: cannot skip over this entirely particularly good lawyer he may be.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's Code or Alvanati, who is
Speaker 1: the worst lawyer twenty eighteen. It's a I tell call.
Speaker 1: I think either one of them you can make the case.
Speaker 1: But Cohen was asked or he asked a very straightforward
Speaker 1: question because remember he taped Trump, which is a strange
Speaker 1: thing to do as well, because he taped him before
Speaker 1: it seems that he had this whole change of heart thing, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you got Carolyn Maloney is saying, for example,
Speaker 1: that this is a story of redemption. The congresswoman Maloney
Speaker 1: played fourteen. Michael, can you suggest who else this committee
Speaker 1: should talk to for additional information on this or anything else? Yes,
Speaker 1: I believe David Becker, Dylan Howard, Barry Levine of AMI
Speaker 1: as well, Alan Weisselberg, Alan Garden, Trump Organization as well. Well.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for your testimony, and mister Chairman,
Speaker 1: this is a story of redemption, Thank you man. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: a story of redemption. Yeah right. Cohen doesn't know if
Speaker 1: recording clients is ethical play fifteen New York's a one
Speaker 1: party can sensate, one person can record the other one
Speaker 1: without it being illegal. Correct, But you also are a
Speaker 1: member of the New York Bar. I was, yes, how
Speaker 1: would you rate recording clients in the ethical realm of
Speaker 1: being a lawyer? And it's not illegal? And I'm not
Speaker 1: asking if it's illegal, I'm asking if it's I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know that we'd have to leave and judgment
Speaker 1: of the bars socially so. But I think every other
Speaker 1: lawyer in here knows exactly where it is in the
Speaker 1: ethical standard. Highly highly highly unethical. I'm not a lawyer,
Speaker 1: and I don't play well on radio, but I can
Speaker 1: tell you guess what lawyers recording their clients as leverage
Speaker 1: against them. It's a big problem. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton his back. Once I get eight seconds.
Speaker 1: I got eight seconds. What did you talk to mister
Speaker 1: Schiff about. I spoke to mister Schiff about topics that
Speaker 1: we're going to be raised at the upcoming hearing. Whoa
Speaker 1: not just what time to show up? Actually what you're
Speaker 1: going to talk about the gentlemen? Time to expired? Wow,
Speaker 1: mister starbing H. It's almost like this is all a
Speaker 1: Democrat opo exhibition in the first place, isn't it. I
Speaker 1: want to bring in somebody who can speak to the
Speaker 1: politics and also speak to what's going on in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: which is much more consequential than anything happening on Capitol Hill. Today.
Speaker 1: We're joined by our friend Tony Schaeffer, Lieutenant colonel. He
Speaker 1: has of course retired. He's Vice president for Strategic Initiatives
Speaker 1: and Operations at the London Center for Policy Research. Tony,
Speaker 1: great to have you all, my friend, Hey Buck, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. Great to be back on and talking
Speaker 1: to you again. So tell a bit about just, you know,
Speaker 1: your takeaways today. What mattered from what was a pretty endless,
Speaker 1: repetitive and overall boring hearing, but from what you could
Speaker 1: see and from you know, what should we care about?
Speaker 1: From as if anything, well, I think the one thing
Speaker 1: that kicked this all off theoretically, you know, theoretically being
Speaker 1: the operative word, is the Russian collusion issue. And I
Speaker 1: heard nothing that relates directly to anything Russia other than
Speaker 1: an opinion that you know, Cohen had not. Remember, this
Speaker 1: guy's a lawyer, so he's supposed to understand the basic
Speaker 1: tenants of the law. He had a feeling that something
Speaker 1: was going on, and you know, you and I and
Speaker 1: stuff we've been over the years. That won't even make
Speaker 1: for a good field report, let alone, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a sworn bit of testimony. And secondly, you know Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan and I love Jimmy, you know, confirm a friend,
Speaker 1: was I think doing the right thing going through and
Speaker 1: trying to tear down the narrative by the fact that
Speaker 1: Cohen lied, He got caught lying. He's been convicted. Pretty
Speaker 1: much everything he's been convicted of relates to his own
Speaker 1: personal deceptive practices. And that's the other thing that Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan I think did a great job, and other members
Speaker 1: of the Republican side did. They kind of showed this
Speaker 1: guy to be a complete fraud and those those things,
Speaker 1: you know, that's the fact. And you've got people like
Speaker 1: Shift Representative Shift, whose primary objective in life has not
Speaker 1: been accountability or oversight. It's been trying to find something
Speaker 1: to disrupt the president and what he's doing, and to
Speaker 1: me today was a complete and utter play, if you will,
Speaker 1: good guys, bad guys, all about the politics, But wasn't
Speaker 1: one point I found from anything I've heard, that resulted
Speaker 1: in any legal issue. The president should be worried about it.
Speaker 1: I think it was just a political theater. And in
Speaker 1: terms of impeachment, are we heading there regardless of whatever
Speaker 1: the analysis is from the left of today's events, And
Speaker 1: I've always felt like they're willing to go there, even
Speaker 1: if wisdom would tell them not to. Unfortunately, I think
Speaker 1: that if people were actually looking at the facts and
Speaker 1: again following the law, looking at what is legal and not,
Speaker 1: the issues which were brought up today by Cohen are
Speaker 1: inconvenient and it's it's the old adage of making sausage,
Speaker 1: you know, the sausage making process is very nasty. Politics
Speaker 1: are very nasty, nasty game, and everything I heard that
Speaker 1: they had to do with the way the political game
Speaker 1: is played, no matter what side you're on, but not
Speaker 1: a thing rises to the level remotely of impeachment. With
Speaker 1: that said, I think that the Democrat Party are completely
Speaker 1: committed to that being a course of action, and I
Speaker 1: don't think there's going to be any common sense or
Speaker 1: any facts which slowed them down from pushing towards something
Speaker 1: in the way of some appeachable offense, even if they
Speaker 1: have to make one out, make one up out a
Speaker 1: whole cloth. We're speaking to a Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer
Speaker 1: of a London Center for a Policy research. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to Let's get to something that actually matters
Speaker 1: to all of us, or should matter to all of us,
Speaker 1: which is the prospect for a breakthrough with North Korea
Speaker 1: President Trump's in Vietnam. Look, Tony, you and I both
Speaker 1: know that this is not just high stakes. It is
Speaker 1: a difficult a difficult ask. It's a difficult thing to
Speaker 1: pull off here, no question about it. But you know,
Speaker 1: how do you view where the president is on this
Speaker 1: so far, and what are your expectations for what he
Speaker 1: realistically but successfully could get out of this. Yeah. I've
Speaker 1: worked this issue since the nineteen ninety two one, back
Speaker 1: when Jim Wolsey became director of CIA, and Jim and
Speaker 1: I are still friends and we talk about this fairly often.
Speaker 1: Even then in the nineties, when we knew that we
Speaker 1: had intered into agreement that they would uncularize, they didn't
Speaker 1: do it. We gave the stuff anyway. That was repeated
Speaker 1: under President Bush and again repeated under Barack Obama. Every
Speaker 1: time we've sought an agreement and given them stuff, they
Speaker 1: were neigued. President got to stop that. He's actually taking
Speaker 1: the approach of let's talk to them and maintain really
Speaker 1: hard sanctions, but give them an option other than simply
Speaker 1: trying to contain them. And the option here, I think
Speaker 1: is a valid one is the idea of creating an
Speaker 1: economic circumstance, an enticement, if you will, for the entire
Speaker 1: country to kind of walk itself off the ledge. And
Speaker 1: I think the strategy of doing this in Vietnam, which
Speaker 1: was a former enemy now turned an economic partner, was
Speaker 1: a brilliant move. It's kind of like the proofs in
Speaker 1: the pudding, walk away from the Dula coast language and behavior,
Speaker 1: and hey, you may join the twenty first century. So
Speaker 1: I think that's the thing to take away from here.
Speaker 1: And do I believe there'll be a huge breakout or
Speaker 1: a huge event at this I'm hoping, I am sincerely
Speaker 1: hoping that we'll get some indication that we're going to
Speaker 1: end the Korean War war that's been essentially ongoing. But
Speaker 1: on pause since nineteen nineteen fifty one. We entered in
Speaker 1: the arm assists in fifty three. So I do believe
Speaker 1: the president's doing a good job of really pushing him
Speaker 1: to understand that we will continue to use military force
Speaker 1: if necessary, because maintain sanctions as we are until there's
Speaker 1: some indication that he's sincere and doing the things complying
Speaker 1: with these things we're asking to do, primarily the nicular
Speaker 1: weaponsition taking Let's take the Trump approach off the table
Speaker 1: for a moment, based on the glide path that we
Speaker 1: were on from the Obama administration beforehand. If status quo
Speaker 1: had continued with North Korea. With the approach North Korea,
Speaker 1: what did you see happening in the next five years? Well,
Speaker 1: I would have send two years buck. Look, they were
Speaker 1: building an effective range of ballistic missiles, very long range
Speaker 1: that could reach her. Why I look out met with
Speaker 1: Coulsy Gabbett on this while the Democrat Party's anti ballistic
Speaker 1: missile protection. She was calling for Hawaii to be essentially
Speaker 1: armed because there was a realistic a threat against the
Speaker 1: state of the Hawaii. The other thing that I was
Speaker 1: concerned about is that they may do some provocative actions
Speaker 1: such as a firing off a high altitude nucular blast
Speaker 1: and creating an MP electromegatic pulse and saying, oh, we
Speaker 1: had no idea that was going to cause damage. And
Speaker 1: under a Barack Obama, based on his other lack of
Speaker 1: following through on threats such as Syria, I think would
Speaker 1: have had the impression he could get away with that,
Speaker 1: and he would have continued to push. So this is
Speaker 1: the critical departure from the Obama administration is that the
Speaker 1: President Trump as has made it very clear, and I
Speaker 1: do believe General Joseph Done for the Chairman to Joint Chiefs,
Speaker 1: has made this very clear in the language they've been
Speaker 1: using that there would be huge consequences for any continued provocation.
Speaker 1: And then the engagement that President Trump entered into I
Speaker 1: think has been another thing which has prevented them from
Speaker 1: firing new ballistic missiles. And I'm sorry, I'm one of
Speaker 1: those who I do believe that they've got re entry
Speaker 1: technology for nucular weapons and buck I mean of the
Speaker 1: I don't know what the intelligencemmunity is thinking, but it's
Speaker 1: not that difficult. It's all about ceramics. You can if
Speaker 1: you can deal with high temperature surroundings, you can create
Speaker 1: every entry vehicle. So I do believe that that direction
Speaker 1: would have been sustained by the North Koreans. They would
Speaker 1: have continued to develop weapons, and I think they would
Speaker 1: have had an eye on us some provocative fashion to
Speaker 1: see how far they could get away with something. You
Speaker 1: think we might have ended up having to take a
Speaker 1: strike against them before that, Yeah, no doubt. For a fact.
Speaker 1: We've planned these things since the nineties, but we've never
Speaker 1: fallen through. But I do believe that he was. He
Speaker 1: was inching his way forward, but just seeing how far
Speaker 1: he could get. And remember, there was no consequences to
Speaker 1: the bad behavior. It's been made very clear that there
Speaker 1: will be consequences, and there's no doubt that President Trump
Speaker 1: would have fall us through with consequences that behavior continues.
Speaker 1: So again it's night and day between what Barack Obama
Speaker 1: I think and at frankly a Hillary Clinton presidency would
Speaker 1: have resulted in. I think we would have seen some
Speaker 1: level of nikular use the North Koreans, so they thought
Speaker 1: they could get away with it. Speaking to Lieutenant Colonel
Speaker 1: Tony Schaefer here before we let you go, Uh, Tony,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about Syria. Something yeah, near
Speaker 1: and dear to my heart as a topic, but also
Speaker 1: as as something that I'm gonna be talking about at
Speaker 1: seapack later on in the week. Where are you what's
Speaker 1: your your sense of the decision to lead behind? I
Speaker 1: think it's four hundred. I've seen three hundred, four hundreds
Speaker 1: something like that in Syria. What is the proper mission
Speaker 1: set for the United States inside Syria? The primary missions
Speaker 1: at this point in special operations and closer support to
Speaker 1: our allies occurreds in the Syrian Free Forces are working with.
Speaker 1: That's it. It's not our job to rebuild Syria. I
Speaker 1: think the primary mission there should go to the regional
Speaker 1: allies and friends. We've been working on something since before
Speaker 1: the administration came in called the Arab NATO. It's now
Speaker 1: called the Middle East Strategic Alliance. The idea should be
Speaker 1: bucked that, you know, people other than us goes in
Speaker 1: to do the peacekeeping in the stability GOMP. The other
Speaker 1: thing is, you know, when the audience, I don't think
Speaker 1: it is gonna be prize. We had put indo Syria
Speaker 1: as part of our going after isis a perhaps depending
Speaker 1: on who you talk to, between six to eight thousand
Speaker 1: American forces that includes contractors and military forces, and simply put,
Speaker 1: they were becoming essentially a mission creep. We were doing
Speaker 1: more than our original mission of defeating ISIS, and that's dangerous.
Speaker 1: We've seen that happen before in other nations. And I'm
Speaker 1: one of those who I'm a Reagan Conservative, I'm not
Speaker 1: an eacon. I don't believe it's our job to go
Speaker 1: solve every single world conflict. It's our job to defeat
Speaker 1: terrorist organizations which lead which are clear in present danger
Speaker 1: to our interests, our homeland, and our allies. And I
Speaker 1: think that's been pretty much done regarding ISIS. The other
Speaker 1: things should be done to resolve the issue in Syria,
Speaker 1: but I don't believe for a minute that are putting
Speaker 1: in a large ground force, which hr McMaster was proposing
Speaker 1: and others have tried to push for, would be anything
Speaker 1: more than folly, as we've seen in other nations where
Speaker 1: we've we've done that sort of thing. Jennet, Colonel Tony
Speaker 1: Shaffer every Buddy London's for Policy Research to see what
Speaker 1: he's up to, and also on Twitter, T s pooky
Speaker 1: or T spooky depending on T spooky. Okay, Tony thanks
Speaker 1: so much for making the time. Man appreciate it. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks luck team, We'll be right back. Here's what the
Speaker 1: US attorney said about mister Cohen. While mister Cohen enjoyed
Speaker 1: a privileged life, his desire for ever greater wealth and
Speaker 1: influence precipitated an extensive course of criminal conduct. Mister Cohen
Speaker 1: committed four four distinct federal crimes over a period of
Speaker 1: several years. He was motivated to do so by personal greed,
Speaker 1: and repeatedly, repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats don't care. They don't care. They just
Speaker 1: want to use you. Mister Cohen, you're there, Patsy. Today
Speaker 1: they got to find somebody somewhere to say something so
Speaker 1: they can try to remove the president from office. That
Speaker 1: is correct. This was all a set up today, all
Speaker 1: an effort to just let the left air out all
Speaker 1: of its rage against this president. Oh, talking about his
Speaker 1: tax returns, his golf courses, all this stuff. What a
Speaker 1: giant waste of everybody's time. But if you're consumed with
Speaker 1: anger at this president for taking away what the left
Speaker 1: believed was rightfully Hilary's the power of the presidency, itself.
Speaker 1: I guess any opportunity to vent that fury is something
Speaker 1: that you jump at. And so here we are keep
Speaker 1: in mind that it is still believed that next week now,
Speaker 1: once the president's back from Vietnam, next week, there will
Speaker 1: be all the Mullar probe will essentially end. There will
Speaker 1: be a report that we may or may not get
Speaker 1: to see some parts of all of I don't know,
Speaker 1: but you could tell that there's already a bit of
Speaker 1: a preview of how the left is going to treat
Speaker 1: that report, because today people were saying things. I was
Speaker 1: looking at the analysis from the Blue Check journo types,
Speaker 1: oh Trump Trump had advanced word of wiki leaks. Advanced
Speaker 1: word of wiki leaks. No, that's not true. It's not true.
Speaker 1: If you look WikiLeaks was before the Trump Roger Stone
Speaker 1: conversation supposedly happened about contacting WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks that had already
Speaker 1: tweeted out from its official account that they were going
Speaker 1: to drop emails about Hillary and Burnie and on all
Speaker 1: of that. So that was already out there. These were
Speaker 1: rumors that people were hearing for quite a while during
Speaker 1: that period of time, and it was widely known that
Speaker 1: the WikiLeaks was going to drop something, and people had
Speaker 1: a pretty good idea of what that was. But the
Speaker 1: misreporting from journalists is not something that they ever think
Speaker 1: they're going to be held to account for. They're not
Speaker 1: going to be punished as long as it hurts Trump
Speaker 1: or this is all a hurt Trump operation. That is
Speaker 1: what they were trying to do today. That was the
Speaker 1: whole purpose of this. And that's also why you can tell,
Speaker 1: based on the Democrats who were involved, that this really
Speaker 1: is a Clinton This is Hilary's revenge in a sense.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan actually spoke to this when he went after
Speaker 1: Elijah Cummings a little bit in the hearing. Clicklip five.
Speaker 1: Mister chairman, your chairmanship will always be identified with this hearing,
Speaker 1: and we all need to understand what this is. This
Speaker 1: is the Michael Cohen hearing presented by Lanny Davis. That's right,
Speaker 1: Lanny Davis choreographed the whole darned thing. The Clinton's best friend,
Speaker 1: loyalists operative. Lannye Davis put this all together. You know
Speaker 1: how we know? He told our staff, He told the
Speaker 1: committee staff, he said the hearing was his idea. He
Speaker 1: selected this committee. He had to talk Michael Cohen into coming,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, he had to persuade the chairman to
Speaker 1: actually have it. This might be the first time someone
Speaker 1: convicted of lying to Congress has appeared again so quickly
Speaker 1: in front of Congress. Certainly it's the first time a
Speaker 1: convicted perjurer has been brought back to be a star
Speaker 1: witness in a hearing. Jim Jordan going for it today.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously he didn't have a blazer on because
Speaker 1: he's Jim Jordan, so no suit jacket for Jim. But
Speaker 1: he's making some very important points here, which is that
Speaker 1: this was all just about politics today, and it tells
Speaker 1: you a lot about the new Democrat majority that this
Speaker 1: is the hearing that they want to have. You know,
Speaker 1: one thing was surprising. Occasio Cortez got her shot to
Speaker 1: ask Cohen questions. It was she didn't ask him anything. Really,
Speaker 1: it was a very maybe she just realized better not
Speaker 1: to give the right a viral meme of her stupidity
Speaker 1: for the week. I think that may have been a
Speaker 1: part of it, because there was nothing memorable about her questioning.
Speaker 1: But really today's hearing there was very little those memorable period.
Speaker 1: We're gonna switch topics for the rest of the show, folks,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sit here and keep going. Oh
Speaker 1: and then an hour three and then an hour five.
Speaker 1: And you know, Cohen's a liar. He hates Trump. He's
Speaker 1: saying bad stuff about Trump. No one thinks that Trump
Speaker 1: is perfect for Trump did not clue with Russia. Trump
Speaker 1: is not a Russian stude. He's not some arch criminal.
Speaker 1: This is all bullcrap. We all know it. And you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats maybe should focus on making a real argument instead
Speaker 1: of trying to rely on the exploitation of the law
Speaker 1: and the abusing of prosecutorial powers and investigative authority to
Speaker 1: do what they can't accomplish despite the vast propaganda networks
Speaker 1: that are at their disposal. Right so, I wish that
Speaker 1: they would just back off the lawfare a little bit.
Speaker 1: But that's going to continue on with this president, There's
Speaker 1: no question about it. We're gonna talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more about the North Korea situation, and then I've got
Speaker 1: remember when the ten year olds were lecturing Diane fine Stein.
Speaker 1: I spoke to the founder of that movement today and
Speaker 1: I asked or some questions that you're gonna want to
Speaker 1: hear the answers to, Like, hey, person, that now runs
Speaker 1: a national movement mobilizing for climate change action. Do you
Speaker 1: really think that ten year olds understand this stuff? Do
Speaker 1: you think that ten year old should be able to
Speaker 1: vote in elections? My friends, you will want to hear
Speaker 1: that exchange. It is coming up some folks. I think
Speaker 1: its senior organizations. AARP comes to mind right away, but
Speaker 1: you know it doesn't always come to mind for even
Speaker 1: those folks that aarps pretty left wing. It is all
Speaker 1: about progressive causes and fought tooth and nail for Obamacare
Speaker 1: and does not believe in securing our southern border. That's
Speaker 1: why for seniors, I recommend AMAC. AMAC was founded by
Speaker 1: an Air Force vet, and it's an organization that shares
Speaker 1: your values. AMAC also gets you great discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistance, and much more. But if you want the
Speaker 1: conservative alternative to AARP, AMAC is your answer. Join the
Speaker 1: over one point five million patriotic America who are already
Speaker 1: part of AMAC, stand with AMACK as they fight the
Speaker 1: good fight by becoming a member today. Join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMACK is better, better for you, better for America.
Speaker 1: You are now entering the Freedom Hotti Elaboration Center. All
Speaker 1: programs Muskie camps strictly need to know Team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for the Buck brief. The fear is
Speaker 1: that he gets into a bad agreement to make big
Speaker 1: news and hopefully, in his mind, distract the public from
Speaker 1: what Michael Cohen is saying. Michael Cohen is on Capitol Hilliot,
Speaker 1: how could that impact the negotiations we see in North Korea?
Speaker 1: What could we see the president giveaway? There is a
Speaker 1: great weariness that this president would give away the store.
Speaker 1: The President's just looking for good press and he figures
Speaker 1: another photo op might do that. And the president's lack
Speaker 1: of seriousness, lack of preparation, and lack of groundwork when
Speaker 1: he goes into these summits, the President can't be too
Speaker 1: naive or too eager to reach a deal that gives
Speaker 1: him that photo up. The President could make an impulsive
Speaker 1: comment that would give away more than his team is planning.
Speaker 1: The President always gets left naked of poker table because
Speaker 1: he doesn't negotiate to save his life. The President declaring
Speaker 1: his love affair essentially with Kim Jonglen, how does that
Speaker 1: lay the groundwork for negotiations. Yeah, they're really rooting for
Speaker 1: President Trump to avert a possible nuclear exchange, aren't they.
Speaker 1: Nuclear war folks, That's what it would be if North
Speaker 1: Korea fired off a nuke, could somebody us or one
Speaker 1: of our allies. Retaliation would be nuclear and would eliminate
Speaker 1: North Korea. Millions and millions of people be dead. If
Speaker 1: there's one area where you would think, perhaps, just perhaps
Speaker 1: there would there would be a chance for people putting
Speaker 1: aside partisan affiliation and just hope for the absolute best.
Speaker 1: It would be on averting a nuclear war. But Libs
Speaker 1: won't do it. Libs won't do it, in fact that
Speaker 1: they would much rather have us talk about hush hush
Speaker 1: money payments to porn stars and bizarre conspiracy theories that
Speaker 1: Democrats trotted out into all this and they or rather
Speaker 1: you know, about Trump that they trotted out into all this.
Speaker 1: And it's just so indicative of the degree of trumped
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome that they're willing to ignore or downplay the
Speaker 1: news out of Vietnam right now, where you have a
Speaker 1: president who's trying to negotiate an end to a war
Speaker 1: that's been going on since nineteen fifty three, a nuclear
Speaker 1: threat that's only increasing with time. I mean, here's the
Speaker 1: truth of the situation on the Korean peninsula. Mean, it's
Speaker 1: bad and it's going to get worse. Trump is trying
Speaker 1: to stop that from happening. But that was the trajectory.
Speaker 1: You know, there are nine nuclear states in the world.
Speaker 1: North Korea is by far the most aggressive, the most psychotic,
Speaker 1: the most troublesome, and nukes represent the absolute pinnacle of
Speaker 1: military force. So you look at Kim Jong owned and
Speaker 1: understand that his entire regime is force. So getting him
Speaker 1: to give away his Trump card pardon the pun is
Speaker 1: going to require something near a miracle. But it's a
Speaker 1: miracle that everybody should want. Everybody should want it. Kim
Speaker 1: Jong oonne is seeing what happens to countries that don't
Speaker 1: have nukes. Saw what happened Asadam, saw what happened to
Speaker 1: Kadafi and Libya. You think that that doesn't factor into
Speaker 1: his calculation. Sure, I see he sees what happens. Probably
Speaker 1: if he based cloths enough attention in Ukraine. Ukraine after
Speaker 1: these Soviet Union dissolve had a lot of nukes because
Speaker 1: the Brits and the Americans and yes, the Russians promised
Speaker 1: to defend their territorial integrity, and the Russians obviously lied
Speaker 1: that we won't do anything really about it. But North
Speaker 1: Korea is currently an existential threat to South Korea, and
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of time if we're not there
Speaker 1: already depends on whether they could hit Hawaii or Guam
Speaker 1: or you know, how far their nuclear missiles would really
Speaker 1: be able to go. Just a matter of time though,
Speaker 1: before they are a threat to the US homeland. And
Speaker 1: the more you also understand about this regime, the more
Speaker 1: you realize that it's going to take time to de escalate.
Speaker 1: It's not just like you sign a piece of paper.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump is going to get an agreement. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll find out tomorrow the agreement will lay out some steps.
Speaker 1: If it has verification procedures in there, that would be
Speaker 1: you know, really positive and certainly move in the right direction.
Speaker 1: But the entire ideology of the North Korean state has
Speaker 1: been about preparation for a war with US. That's what
Speaker 1: they get up every day, and the leadership this is
Speaker 1: what they're thinking about. This is what their whole regime
Speaker 1: is geared toward. So when you understand that much, and
Speaker 1: you look at what they've been willing to do in
Speaker 1: order to get to their nuclear status. You know, keep
Speaker 1: in mind, yeah, North Korea is one of the poorest
Speaker 1: countries in the world. They're over two hundred countries. Nord
Speaker 1: Koree is one of the poorest countries of the world,
Speaker 1: but it's one of nine that has nukes that we
Speaker 1: know of. So when that country says that they are
Speaker 1: in the final stage of preparations for an intercontinental ballistic
Speaker 1: missile and is trying to build the capability for a
Speaker 1: preemptive strike, which is what Kim Jong un has said,
Speaker 1: you need to pay attention to that because they've sacrificed
Speaker 1: a lot. Their people have literally stalled so that they
Speaker 1: could build these nukes and this enormous military and this
Speaker 1: concentration of force in the hands of the state. And yes,
Speaker 1: the administration has put smart sanctions into place. China has
Speaker 1: taken a stronger approach to North Korea then on at
Speaker 1: any time, and certainly the recent past, perhaps and any
Speaker 1: time ever. They've banned call imports from North Korea, for
Speaker 1: they did that in twenty seventeen. But when you look
Speaker 1: at what North Korea has done, I mean, they at
Speaker 1: least eight times in the past they either said they
Speaker 1: would not pursue or then abandoned, or essentially they lied
Speaker 1: about their nukes, their nuclear program, and we've seen them
Speaker 1: to be the dissemblers on the world stage that they
Speaker 1: are also And here's another problem. This is why the
Speaker 1: Obama approach, whether it's Iran and Earth Koreer anywhere, isn't
Speaker 1: going to get it done. Concessions with North Korea don't work.
Speaker 1: Concessions don't work, So what do you do. You have
Speaker 1: to have the credible threat of force, which Trump has,
Speaker 1: and then away forward that benefits the North Korean state
Speaker 1: and people. That's why Trump's talking about a better economy.
Speaker 1: That's why he's saying that they have tremendous upside here
Speaker 1: if only they could change some things around. It's not
Speaker 1: because he's some guy who's in the pocket of the
Speaker 1: North Korean state or you know, he loves Kim Jong
Speaker 1: and people make fun the way the president talks. Where
Speaker 1: did Obama get with North Korea? Where did all of you,
Speaker 1: all of the luminaries of the foreign policy elite, whe
Speaker 1: where did they get North Korean? Answer is nowhere. The
Speaker 1: answer is nowhere. I mean, the demands that the North
Speaker 1: Koreans have made in the past have been absolutely ludicrous.
Speaker 1: That's because they figured that they could get away, because
Speaker 1: in many cases they did. You know what the Obama
Speaker 1: administration's approach North Korea was. Just just to remind you all,
Speaker 1: remember in Libya, the Obama administration said that they were
Speaker 1: going to lead from behind, and that was among the
Speaker 1: greatest Obama isms of all time. We all knew, we
Speaker 1: all knew what that meant, leading from behind. But the
Speaker 1: Obama aministration had an equally insightful and laughable slogan for
Speaker 1: what they were trying to do with North Korea, which
Speaker 1: is quote, strategic patience. You know, if they're this is
Speaker 1: like advancing in reverse. I mean, this is almost an oxymoron.
Speaker 1: Strategic patience you mean not doing anything, you mean, not
Speaker 1: taking any particular action. Also, the negotiation with China, let's
Speaker 1: understand that factors into all this too. You have to
Speaker 1: think the same way that anyone who understands Afghanistan knows
Speaker 1: that it's what they started to call a pack, that's
Speaker 1: what the cool kids call it, Afghanistan Pakistan. The same
Speaker 1: way that if you want to deal with Afghanistan, effectively,
Speaker 1: you have to know that you're always dealing with Pakistan
Speaker 1: and also Iran and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan countries to the
Speaker 1: north of Afghanistan, but particularly Pakistan. You have to understand
Speaker 1: these are a related problem set. Well. North Korean China
Speaker 1: are related problem set. China provides ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: economic activity of North Korea, all right, so when China
Speaker 1: decides to crack down on North Korea, that really matters.
Speaker 1: And by being willing to have economic sanctions against or
Speaker 1: take economic actions against China in order to get them
Speaker 1: to deal more fairly with us, there's also of course
Speaker 1: the opening in these negotiations to get them to take
Speaker 1: more action on North Korea. So you know, the people
Speaker 1: that are laughing at Tromp and mocking him on this,
Speaker 1: he's got his handsful, there's no question about it. But
Speaker 1: he's also tackling a problem that didn't just be devil
Speaker 1: bested previous administrations full of people that were supposed to
Speaker 1: be brilliant geostrategists, the best of the best, and it
Speaker 1: did this now for the Clinton administration North Korea School,
Speaker 1: the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration. Trump
Speaker 1: is taking a different approach. I just wish that we
Speaker 1: could get the country on the same page here, you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats instead of just being so obsessed with the latest
Speaker 1: from Michael Cohen. Oh, what does Cohen have to say
Speaker 1: about this? You know, how how is Cohen going to
Speaker 1: be useful for our efforts to try and tear down
Speaker 1: this president? Maybe they should focus in on how could
Speaker 1: we maybe give helpful advice to the president to get
Speaker 1: some kind of a deal here, and a deal that
Speaker 1: would also be helpful for other negotiations that are underway
Speaker 1: or and also will be underway in Asia and the future.
Speaker 1: Remember the obaministration said they were going to pivot to Asia.
Speaker 1: That pivot never really happened. Trump is pivoting to Asia.
Speaker 1: He is looking at what's happening in that part of
Speaker 1: the world, which is where you have the greatest explosion
Speaker 1: of population and wealth and a technological dynamism, and he's
Speaker 1: taking this on. So I'm not saying it's perfect. I
Speaker 1: don't know if this agreement he's going to get, assuming
Speaker 1: he even gets an agreement, is going to be as
Speaker 1: wonderful as I'm sure the White House is going to
Speaker 1: say it is. But it's something and it's serious and
Speaker 1: direct talks. Now that you look back at this, the
Speaker 1: previous conventional wisdom here was that sitting down with Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un was a terrible idea with legitimizer. How are we, ever,
Speaker 1: how are we ever going to break the stalemate without
Speaker 1: having somebody at the president you know, the president. I
Speaker 1: was at somebody at the presidential level, having the president
Speaker 1: talked to the leader of this country that has been
Speaker 1: such a problem with the international community for decades. You know,
Speaker 1: how are we ever gonna get there? We're gonna back
Speaker 1: We think we're gonna have a back channel discussion North
Speaker 1: Creer to get them to give up their nukes. Given
Speaker 1: the nature of this regime, I just think that was
Speaker 1: never going to happen. I was never going to happen.
Speaker 1: This is the hardest diplomatic challenge that Trump could have,
Speaker 1: or anyone could have coming into office right now. And
Speaker 1: I think the President deserves our best wishes and honestly,
Speaker 1: our prayers on this one morning. Coffee is an American institution.
Speaker 1: That's why I kick off every day the same way
Speaker 1: with a delicious cup of black rifle coffee. I put
Speaker 1: those k cup rounds right in my machine, bam, and
Speaker 1: I make it happen because Black Rifle helps me get
Speaker 1: it done. You know, Black Rifle is also a fantastic
Speaker 1: company founded by special Operations vets. They give a portion
Speaker 1: of their sales to first responder and veteran causes. Oh, plus,
Speaker 1: the coffee is delicious, and I'm somebody that gets really
Speaker 1: into their coffee. Black Rifle coffee is roast to order,
Speaker 1: guaranteed fresh when delivered to your door. And oh that's right.
Speaker 1: It's also super convenient. They will send it right to you.
Speaker 1: Don't have to worry anymore about when or where you're
Speaker 1: gonna get your coffee. All right. While liberals threatened to
Speaker 1: further tax your hard earned money with their socialism, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle is fueling the fight for freedom by upping their
Speaker 1: offer to twenty percent off. Take advantage by visiting Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck get twenty percent off your
Speaker 1: entire order. Again, that's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck
Speaker 1: for twenty percent off. The Democratic Party has lost any
Speaker 1: sense of patriotism, any sense of balance, any sense of propriety.
Speaker 1: And you would think when you deal with something like
Speaker 1: the Korean War, the nuclear weapons in North Korea, the
Speaker 1: potential to make you get a breakthrough. It might work,
Speaker 1: it may not work, but boy, it's sure a courageous step.
Speaker 1: The bitterness, the hatred, frankly, is so deep that they
Speaker 1: can't see beyond their own fractricidal warfare. Very dangerous for
Speaker 1: the country. I think I didn't even know new Degree
Speaker 1: with maybe a new degrees with me. So there's that
Speaker 1: mister Gingrich himself a speaker. I know. I'm not somebody
Speaker 1: that likes the whole. Oh, we're going to keep people's
Speaker 1: titles going forward, even when they don't have that title anymore.
Speaker 1: It's not a new it's not a new criticism. It's
Speaker 1: just like people with oh, speaker, speaker Gingrich. No, No,
Speaker 1: he's now, he's now just Newt, new to loot, what's up, Newt.
Speaker 1: I do not think we should call people speaker or
Speaker 1: leader or any of these things when they do not
Speaker 1: have that title. I don't think these titles should be
Speaker 1: kept in perpetuity. I don't think they should be inherited.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not in favor of any anyway on the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Yeah, this is this is what you see happening.
Speaker 1: There's an obvious an obvious rooting for failure in North Korea,
Speaker 1: because imagine how lib heads would explode, explode if Trump
Speaker 1: the hush money to porn star paying vulgarian who doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, doesn't like fine cuisine and orders his stakes
Speaker 1: well done with ketchup on them, and all these things,
Speaker 1: and who likes fast food, hamburgers, all this stuff that
Speaker 1: the media just despises about him. If that guy, if
Speaker 1: the brash builder billionaire abuse that alliteration buck from Queens
Speaker 1: was able to get an agreement that would be the
Speaker 1: single most momentous diplomatic national security accord in the post
Speaker 1: post Cold War era since the Berlin Wall came down.
Speaker 1: What would they say then, because you know what would
Speaker 1: also happen, and this, this lingers in the minds of
Speaker 1: a lot of people. They would look bad. The Obama
Speaker 1: team that still thinks that they're good at foreign policy,
Speaker 1: even though Obama's foreign policy was just all wrong. It's
Speaker 1: basically all wrong, just one one stupid decision after another,
Speaker 1: one failure after another. Every place that was a challenge
Speaker 1: was made worse under Obama's time in office. Every issue
Speaker 1: Obama faced he handled poorly on the global stage. As
Speaker 1: much as everyone likes to say, Oh Obama sounded so presidential. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he gave a lot of speeches that nobody remembers. Now,
Speaker 1: where the whole point was just listen to how eloquent
Speaker 1: Obama is and not are we going to change anything.
Speaker 1: Trump came in to change things. Trump came on the
Speaker 1: world stage. Trump came in with a different philosophy about
Speaker 1: how America should see itself and how America should interact
Speaker 1: with other countries in the world stage. There's going to
Speaker 1: be a level of disruption there. There's going to be
Speaker 1: a level of discomfort. What I think keeps a lot
Speaker 1: of the DC where I'm broadcasting to you from here
Speaker 1: in the swamp. What I think keeps a lot of
Speaker 1: the DC intelligentsia on edge is the possibility that Trump
Speaker 1: may get all this right, that Trump may in fact
Speaker 1: manage to do what neither Obama, nor Bush nor Clinton
Speaker 1: was able to do. And then what are they going
Speaker 1: to say, How are they going to explain that to themselves?
Speaker 1: What will what will be the line of attack be?
Speaker 1: If in fact, there are verifiable inspections of nuclear facilities
Speaker 1: in North Korea and that we are moving toward a
Speaker 1: true and lasting peace all the Korean peninsula. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it is likely. I am saying that would be
Speaker 1: amazing and it's worth trying. And those who are compared
Speaker 1: to what happened with Obama in Iran, I would just say,
Speaker 1: we are not, we are not. We are not give
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un anything. We're giving him the opportunity to
Speaker 1: come clean with Iran. We said, oh, here's a whole
Speaker 1: lot of money, and here's a guarantee we won't strike
Speaker 1: your facilities, and you can keep all the know how
Speaker 1: and all the stuff you want. We saw Israel's presentation
Speaker 1: about all the Iranian nuclear program information they had, and
Speaker 1: that those libraries full of information they've kept. Obama was essentially,
Speaker 1: how do we bribe the Iranians so that we don't
Speaker 1: have to do anything about their nuclear program? Right now,
Speaker 1: Trump is just saying that Kim Jong un, all the
Speaker 1: sanctions are in place. You can either join the Community
Speaker 1: of Nations slowly but surely, or you can roll the
Speaker 1: dice and see what we decide to do if you
Speaker 1: keep testing your missiles and being a threat of the region.
Speaker 1: So we will see how this shakes out. I think
Speaker 1: tomorrow we're supposed to get word from Trump himself. Trump
Speaker 1: is going to be at Sea Pack, I think on Friday,
Speaker 1: so I might see the Trumpster. Maybe I can get
Speaker 1: a few minutes to talk to mister Trump himself about this.
Speaker 1: We'll see. Obviously, security's gonna be a little type backstage.
Speaker 1: Those are going to be in the DC area, especially
Speaker 1: if you our team buck campus, you're gonna be at
Speaker 1: Sea Pack. Definitely come find me. I'll be there tomorrow, Thursday,
Speaker 1: and Friday, so I'll be wandering around. Come say hi.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I've been struck a couple times
Speaker 1: by the denial of humanity of many of these families
Speaker 1: and children. When the issue is framed as an invasion
Speaker 1: by aliens, and when we refer to children as UACs,
Speaker 1: it's easier to pretend they're not human or worthy of compassion.
Speaker 1: This hearing is a recognition and an insistence that on
Speaker 1: that humanity, a recognition that the Flora's decision also addressed,
Speaker 1: and a recognition that just following orders is no more
Speaker 1: an excuse today than it was back in Germany. Wow,
Speaker 1: look at that that was the Democrats. You just the
Speaker 1: stuff is amazing. Mary Scanlon there, Democrat of course, right
Speaker 1: making a pretty clear comparison to immigrations and customs enforcement enforcing,
Speaker 1: which is in the name of the organization enforcing the
Speaker 1: law on immigration, saying that that is similar to what
Speaker 1: the Nazis. Did you know that the Nazi and this
Speaker 1: is really a reference, and I doubt Representative Scanlon even
Speaker 1: knows his history, but the Nazis who were tried at
Speaker 1: Nuremberg and and just in general, this was the defense
Speaker 1: you'd here, was that they were just following orders, right,
Speaker 1: and this this echoed throughout history. Well, if you're doing
Speaker 1: evil and just following orders, you're still doing evil. But
Speaker 1: this tells you what the Democrats really think of law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies. One of the more remarkable turns that we've
Speaker 1: seen is that the same left wing progressives who spent
Speaker 1: years years under the Obamba administration just tearing down law
Speaker 1: enforcement and tearing down the law enforcement that most Americans
Speaker 1: know is the most necessary to their day to day
Speaker 1: lives and does the most good for their community, which
Speaker 1: is local law enforcement, cops, police officers. The Democrats were
Speaker 1: slandering police officers, slandering local sheriff's offices and local police,
Speaker 1: state police because it suited a narrative a narrative of
Speaker 1: the movement Black Lives Matter, that there were young African
Speaker 1: American men who are being murdered for reasons of of
Speaker 1: racism by police departments across the country, and when you
Speaker 1: would look at the numbers, you'd see this is actually
Speaker 1: a very very rare occurrence, not saying it does not happen,
Speaker 1: but it is a rare occurrence. And yet it became
Speaker 1: a central, a central theme of part of the Obama
Speaker 1: second term. Black Lives Matter was probably the best known
Speaker 1: political movement of Obama's second term. Yeah, this also as
Speaker 1: an asside, I spoke to a a long time local
Speaker 1: reporter in Chicago. I can't remember her name on top
Speaker 1: of my habit. She came on Rising later this week,
Speaker 1: and I sometimes we have segments where we just have
Speaker 1: to cover the news, and you know, I've talked to
Speaker 1: a lot of libs and whatever. But she she was
Speaker 1: there to tell us about the mayoral race where I
Speaker 1: believe now two female African American candidates are in a
Speaker 1: runoff was the end result. But the you know what,
Speaker 1: I should actually probably tell you the names before I
Speaker 1: go much further here, but I asked her, you know,
Speaker 1: people know that Chicago has quite a problem with violence,
Speaker 1: and the problem with violence is mostly on the south
Speaker 1: and west sides of the city. Former federal Prosecutor Lorry
Speaker 1: Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Tony Preckwinkle they are
Speaker 1: going to be in an April second runoff in Chicago,
Speaker 1: So there you go. But I asked this long time
Speaker 1: Chicago local news reporter, I said, what are the mayoral
Speaker 1: candidates offering about how to deal with the Chicago homicide rate?
Speaker 1: What are they saying about how they're going to tackle that?
Speaker 1: And it was amazing. Six hundred, wow, six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty people were killed in Chicago and twenty seventeen, that
Speaker 1: is that is astonishing, was at seven I'm sorry, seven
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty two murders in twenty sixteen. By way
Speaker 1: of comparison, New York City, I think here I'll find
Speaker 1: out New York New York homicide rate in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: New York, which is four times the size of San Francisco,
Speaker 1: I mean, of a Chicago had what's the total number
Speaker 1: here a homicides? It's a couple of hundred. I can't
Speaker 1: find the exact number right now, but fewer than three
Speaker 1: hundred homicides. So Chicago is a fourth the size of
Speaker 1: New York City by population. New York is eight million,
Speaker 1: Chicago is a boy two million. And Chicago had more
Speaker 1: than double the murder rate in twenty seventeen. Okay, so
Speaker 1: they got a big problem with murder there. I ask
Speaker 1: I ask this reporter about it, though, and she immediately
Speaker 1: because she knows that, you know, this is not if
Speaker 1: you're at you don't want to talk about the crime
Speaker 1: in Chicago, which is predominantly gang related and black on
Speaker 1: black violence in the city of Chicago. That's what statistically
Speaker 1: that it is, what it predominantly is comprised of. What
Speaker 1: you want to talk about is police violence. So she
Speaker 1: launches into this whole thing about police violence and Lakwan
Speaker 1: McDonald and the shooting, and you know how there needs
Speaker 1: to be more review of police tactics. I'm saying, more
Speaker 1: review of police tactics. I asked you about how to
Speaker 1: stop street violence. I didn't ask you about police brutality.
Speaker 1: But it just goes to show that that the liberal
Speaker 1: mentality is always talk about how the cops are the
Speaker 1: ones who are messing up, how the cops are making mistakes.
Speaker 1: Don't discuss high crime minority communities what could be done
Speaker 1: to help them to fix them, because that's sensitive, you see,
Speaker 1: that's sensitive. You don't want to go there. But the
Speaker 1: liberal mentality is that law enforcement is generally a problem,
Speaker 1: that law enforcement in this country is soaked with racism
Speaker 1: and all kinds of unconscious bias. Accept the FBI. Accept
Speaker 1: the FBI, which we've been told is an organization of
Speaker 1: only the most upstanding and wonderful individuals you could ever
Speaker 1: find at the very top ranks. McCabe and Comi and
Speaker 1: all the rest of them are just first rate. And
Speaker 1: anyone who criticizes them as undermining our institutions, they feel
Speaker 1: that way right now about the FBI. Meanwhile, immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement they will compare to the Nazis. I've even
Speaker 1: seen some very senior former Democrat national security figures who
Speaker 1: have come out and made similar comparisons about our southern
Speaker 1: border and the law enforcement agencies that are tasked with
Speaker 1: securing it with being Nazis, which is just unbelievably irresponsible,
Speaker 1: terrible stuff for them to say. But this is how
Speaker 1: they appeal to their base. They understand it. This is
Speaker 1: how they try to get people fired up about a
Speaker 1: more socially just future. You know, the plan is that
Speaker 1: essentially they will tear down law enforcement right now that
Speaker 1: is essential to Trump's plans of securing the border. And
Speaker 1: in that whole process they'll make it harder for the
Speaker 1: President to achieve his goals. And maybe later on, later on,
Speaker 1: they'll find some means of allowing these agencies, these organizations
Speaker 1: to regroup. I mean, I can tell you when I
Speaker 1: talk to border patrol, they know that the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: even Democrats who are in the border patrol know that
Speaker 1: their parties betrayed them. They know it. People to work
Speaker 1: for immigrations and customs enforcement do not trust left wing
Speaker 1: Democrats when it comes to how to do border enforcement,
Speaker 1: how to deal with immigration laws, because they know it's
Speaker 1: become so incredibly politicized. But to start to bring in
Speaker 1: analogies comparisons of immigrations and customers enforcement to Nazis, you
Speaker 1: start to wonder what is too far for these Democrats?
Speaker 1: You know, what is the length to which they will
Speaker 1: not go in order to make some kind of a
Speaker 1: political point. They have been willing to do so much
Speaker 1: to lie about the border, so much, to say it's
Speaker 1: not a crisis. He had this ridiculous vote that the
Speaker 1: President may end up vetoing because there's a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans who really specialize in cowardice and surrender. Unfortunately, a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans out there don't want to have to
Speaker 1: take a tough vote on this. I really wish the
Speaker 1: media would stop saying, well, politicians along the border og
Speaker 1: Maybe the illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America that
Speaker 1: has completely changed the demographics along many of these border districts.
Speaker 1: Maybe that is something to do with why one you've
Speaker 1: got a lot of Democrats now along the border, and
Speaker 1: two they are very opposed to the wall. They're very
Speaker 1: opposed to the wall because the identity politics to break
Speaker 1: down in this country as such that even if you are,
Speaker 1: you know, in the Latino community, they're constantly told that
Speaker 1: support for the wall is anti Latino. Meanwhile, if you
Speaker 1: spend any time at the border, you find out there
Speaker 1: are Bangladeshi's who are coming to the wall. Now, Chinese
Speaker 1: are coming up with people from all of the world
Speaker 1: are showing up the wall. But the Democrats have been
Speaker 1: shut to may have been shut to spread the messaging
Speaker 1: that Trump wants to build a wall. Merely to stop
Speaker 1: people from Latin America from coming into the country. So
Speaker 1: they haven't an animus toward the wall that is just
Speaker 1: comes from that. But calling immigrations and cuffs enforcement or
Speaker 1: even even speaking about them as though they deserve to
Speaker 1: be talked about the way that the Nazis justified their
Speaker 1: own atrocities, and to say that there's such a dehumanizing effect,
Speaker 1: I mean that woman. Also to call them aliens' that
Speaker 1: is the term in law. No one is saying that
Speaker 1: they're aliens like e t phone home, and they're not
Speaker 1: actually human beings. Alien is a legal term for somebody
Speaker 1: who is not a US citizen who is in the country. Okay,
Speaker 1: if you are a you can be a resident eliot,
Speaker 1: you can be an illegal alien, illegal aliens, people who
Speaker 1: are not supposed to be here. I just think that
Speaker 1: we haven't really figured out the Trump administration hasn't figured
Speaker 1: out how they're going to follow through on the promise
Speaker 1: and immigration yet. I've got to tell you it's a
Speaker 1: it's a disappointment from me up to this point. I
Speaker 1: wish that Trump had gotten on this earlier, and also
Speaker 1: that he had better partners with the Republicans. But you
Speaker 1: know Paul Ryan is a is almost an open borders guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's whoever wants to come here and work
Speaker 1: should be able to work. Whoever wants to do it,
Speaker 1: they should just they should have that totally open to them.
Speaker 1: And there's no cultural I used to pay in this country.
Speaker 1: Assimilation doesn't matter, Political cohesion doesn't matter. It's all just
Speaker 1: about making the donor class happy and making the virtue
Speaker 1: signalers happy by letting anybody who wants to come here
Speaker 1: come here. So Trump hasn't had good partners on this one,
Speaker 1: but we got a lot of work you do still
Speaker 1: in the immigration fight. I think it's going to factor
Speaker 1: into twenty twenty. But if we don't win twenty twenty, folks,
Speaker 1: guess what's gonna happen Amnesty. That said, it appears today's
Speaker 1: hearing topic as well, outside our jurisdiction and power house
Speaker 1: rule ten and the reasons I've stated, how we move
Speaker 1: that we adjourn all those in fairy CEI. Although both
Speaker 1: say no, no, the clerk will call the role mister Sharman,
Speaker 1: and the motion the eyes are four and the knees
Speaker 1: are two. Thank you. The motion passes. The hearing is adjourned.
Speaker 1: All right, So that's not an exciting sound bite until
Speaker 1: you know what it's about and any and then it
Speaker 1: needs a little contact. But there was a House Natural
Speaker 1: Resources Committee subpanel that just yesterday had a was able
Speaker 1: to get together a motion to adjourd at the very
Speaker 1: beginning of a hearing on climate change. Now you might say, buck,
Speaker 1: hold on, hold on a second, buck. Democrats have been
Speaker 1: telling us now for weeks that climate change is an
Speaker 1: existential threat and if we don't do something about climate
Speaker 1: if we don't do something about climate change, I mean,
Speaker 1: the world is just gonna like cease to be the world.
Speaker 1: And like that's why you just have to stop all
Speaker 1: the cow farts and like drive a bicycle or maybe
Speaker 1: even a tricycle to work and not a car. People
Speaker 1: have convinced themselves of this, or at least there's a
Speaker 1: a contingent of the left that believes all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And the way that I just I just gotta say
Speaker 1: this the way that they will assert because I'm with
Speaker 1: the scientists. I'm like, I'm sorry, aren't you the you know,
Speaker 1: men can beat you know, men and men and women
Speaker 1: should be able to should compete in the same athletic
Speaker 1: events as long as the man says he's a woman, aren't.
Speaker 1: Oh but you're the science people, I see. Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: that's that's a good one to know that there was
Speaker 1: all the scientists agree with me. Who are these scientists?
Speaker 1: I'd like these scientists who really sit down. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't even find anywhere a real piece by piece
Speaker 1: assessment not of what they think is going to happen,
Speaker 1: but what their predictions have said for the last twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty years. Because they've been wrong every time, they're
Speaker 1: wrong over and over again. They don't know, but people could. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm one of the smart people. I believe that
Speaker 1: climate change is going to I've met Look, I sat
Speaker 1: down with Crystal yesterday. I didn't get to interview him,
Speaker 1: but you know, Tom Stier came in. It was a
Speaker 1: billionaire as a hedge fund guy who's made billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: so he's obviously not stupid. He believes in this climate
Speaker 1: catastrophe stuff to the you know, to the nth degree.
Speaker 1: I mean, he is all about it. Really thinks that
Speaker 1: the world is in crisis and America has to lead
Speaker 1: and this climate stuff, I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: a crazy cult. It is this is a some kind
Speaker 1: of you know, fringe religious belief that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden has gone mainstream. This is not reasonable stuff to think. No,
Speaker 1: no one really believes the world's gonna end in twelve years,
Speaker 1: right their Their financial planning would dramatically change there there.
Speaker 1: You know, what would you I mean, think of how
Speaker 1: many people would quit their jobs. Heck, I think, well,
Speaker 1: I'd keep doing radio because I love the show. But
Speaker 1: you know a lot of things I wouldn't do anymore
Speaker 1: if I was only the last twelve No one believes this.
Speaker 1: No one are banks changing their lending standards because they're
Speaker 1: not gonna you know, the thirty year mortgage isn't worth
Speaker 1: very much if the world's gonna be underwater in ten
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just so stupid, but it makes
Speaker 1: more sense when you see the actions the left takes.
Speaker 1: And that brings me back to this house. Natural Resources
Speaker 1: is subpanel which was adjourned because Democrats weren't even there.
Speaker 1: Democrats didn't even show up. This is quote the seventh
Speaker 1: oversight hearing related to climate change the majority is holding
Speaker 1: this month. It's been a bit concerning how this all
Speaker 1: fits within the committee's jurisdiction, gomer It says. Louie Gomert says,
Speaker 1: when it comes to matters of climate change, the House
Speaker 1: Rules explicitly references several topics, topics such as conservation of
Speaker 1: energy resources, almost anything that has to do with renewable energy.
Speaker 1: None of these areas follow within the jurisdiction of this committee.
Speaker 1: So you know, they're holding emergency meetings just to hold
Speaker 1: emergency meetings, and then they don't even show up. And
Speaker 1: that's really where the Democrats, that's where the left is
Speaker 1: on this climate change issue. It's it's an emergency in theory,
Speaker 1: it's an emergency rhetorically speaking. Does anyone really feel like
Speaker 1: it's an imminent threat to them? No, of course not, Oh,
Speaker 1: of course not. It's completely absurd. I feel badly for
Speaker 1: anyone who does believe that, because they must live a very,
Speaker 1: very fearful and anxiety filled existence. But Democrats are telling
Speaker 1: you existential crisis, existential threat. But when the House Committee
Speaker 1: on Resources has a meeting about climate change, they can't
Speaker 1: even show up. The Republicans shut it down. Tells you
Speaker 1: a lot, folks, usually in a political debate, I can
Speaker 1: at least understand what the other side is trying to accomplish,
Speaker 1: and I can see my way to understanding at some
Speaker 1: level how it is that even if they're wrong on
Speaker 1: this issue, they could get to that place of wrongness.
Speaker 1: So I can understand the basic fallacies that have brought
Speaker 1: them to this place. And it does not leave me
Speaker 1: flabbergas it doesn't leave me dumbfounded. I can think, Okay,
Speaker 1: I understand why they think this. They're wrong, but I
Speaker 1: know why they think this, you know, I understand the
Speaker 1: basics of it. Today on my show or Rising at
Speaker 1: the Hill, where I have to engage with a very
Speaker 1: very very nice, but very liberal co host. She's very
Speaker 1: very a dear friend, but obviously very very progressive. But
Speaker 1: some of the guests that come in are incredibly left wing,
Speaker 1: and I have to deal with them too and try
Speaker 1: to be respectful and deal with them as I would
Speaker 1: want to be treated as a guest on a show.
Speaker 1: But you will recall the kids that went up to
Speaker 1: Diane fine Stein and told her about what should be
Speaker 1: done on climate change. We are trying to ask you
Speaker 1: to vote yes on the Green New Days. Okay, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what. We have our own Green New Deal scientists,
Speaker 1: We have twelve years to turn this around. Well, it's
Speaker 1: not going to get turned around in ten years. The
Speaker 1: government to be floy the people and by the people.
Speaker 1: And you'll know what's interesting about this group, it's I've
Speaker 1: been doing this for thirty years. I know what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: You come in here and you say it has to
Speaker 1: be my way or the highway. I don't respond to that.
Speaker 1: I know what I'm doing. So you know, maybe people
Speaker 1: should listen a little bit. I hear what you're saying,
Speaker 1: But where the people who voted you, you're supposed to
Speaker 1: listen to us. That's here, I'm sixteen resolution. Any plan
Speaker 1: that doesn't take full transformentive action is not going to
Speaker 1: be what we need. Well, you know better than I do,
Speaker 1: so I think one day you should run for the Senate.
Speaker 1: I let you do it. I wanted to play it
Speaker 1: for you. You can hear me. He's a little kid.
Speaker 1: You will terrified about your world ending in twelve years.
Speaker 1: And you know they're putting themselves in a in a position.
Speaker 1: Now we're supposed to if we have to listen to them,
Speaker 1: they were allowed to criticize them. I'm sorry, it's kind
Speaker 1: of funny. It's like quote the shy and teach of
Speaker 1: the government Shay. I mean, look, they're little kids, They're
Speaker 1: little kids. What are they doing. They should be thinking
Speaker 1: about recess and chocolate chip cookies and you know, making
Speaker 1: friends with new people and stuff. Shouldn't be sitting around
Speaker 1: worrying about the world ending in ten years. This is nuts.
Speaker 1: This is absolutely nuts. And that that group that brought
Speaker 1: them there is called the Sunrise Movement. It is quote
Speaker 1: a movement of young people uniting to stop the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: This dark hour in America cannot last. Welcome to Sunrise
Speaker 1: and that's from their website. Well today we had the
Speaker 1: founder of the Sunrise Movement come on Hill TV. So
Speaker 1: the person who came up with this idea to deploy
Speaker 1: kids for political purposes. And I don't mean kids as
Speaker 1: in like oh those you know young uns in their
Speaker 1: early twenties. No, no, no, no no, I mean eight
Speaker 1: year olds, ten year olds, little kids, children, terrify them
Speaker 1: with stories of how the world's going to end, and
Speaker 1: then send them out to try to guilt adults into
Speaker 1: taking positions on incredibly complicated and important national political matters.
Speaker 1: This is crazy. This, I mean, I know you say,
Speaker 1: or rather you say probably. I definitely say that the
Speaker 1: looney left has really gone to new levels recently, but
Speaker 1: I had to think that this was maybe an anomaly
Speaker 1: that mostly the Sunrise movement, this left wing activist group,
Speaker 1: you know, you know who knows. I got to find
Speaker 1: out he's funding this thing. But you know, they just
Speaker 1: got a whole bunch of people arrested. They're bothering Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: I figured this has got to be for young people,
Speaker 1: but not explicitly going after the politicization of little kids, right,
Speaker 1: that's just too weird, that's crazy. Nobody would do that
Speaker 1: because it's not fair. It's not right to fill little
Speaker 1: kids heads with this kind of propaganda. It's child abuse
Speaker 1: to tell kids that the world's going to end in
Speaker 1: ten years. I mean, if they really believe that, then
Speaker 1: they would change the whole trajectory of their lives. And
Speaker 1: only morons believe this, all right, don't be bullied into this.
Speaker 1: The world is not going to end in ten or
Speaker 1: twelve years. Only idiots believe this. Only people of very
Speaker 1: weak minds with very poor intellectual capacity believe this. A
Speaker 1: lot of people who are otherwise very smart and crafty
Speaker 1: will say it they'll say it because it's a way
Speaker 1: of manipulating the stupid. But nobody who knows anything believes
Speaker 1: that that is the case. But of course, when you're
Speaker 1: talking about eight year olds, they're going to believe what
Speaker 1: the adults tell them, right. So could this movement really
Speaker 1: be about mobilizing little kids in order to try and
Speaker 1: guilt or bully adults into crazy and completely unrealistic political
Speaker 1: action on climate change. The answer is yes. I asked
Speaker 1: the Sunrise Movement co founder today, Varshini Prakash, what do
Speaker 1: you think about this? And I just want to play
Speaker 1: for you this was just from this morning sixteen. Do
Speaker 1: you think that's responsible for little kids to really think
Speaker 1: that the world is going to end in ten years? Well,
Speaker 1: what I would say is that I think people are
Speaker 1: recognizing and are like viscerally responding to the fact that
Speaker 1: young people might be sentient, intelligent beings who actually understand.
Speaker 1: You think ten year olds understand politics. I think ten
Speaker 1: year olds understand that climate change is. You think they
Speaker 1: understand the science beyond climate change? I think that they
Speaker 1: actually Do you think that people should pay attention to
Speaker 1: the politics of kids that don't actually know how to
Speaker 1: In many cases read books about a fourth grade level.
Speaker 1: I honestly think that young people today are extremely intelligent
Speaker 1: and understand intuitively that the climate crisis is a serious threat.
Speaker 1: Or ten year old to be able to vote, I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like those are pretty intelligent beings. I don't
Speaker 1: know the answer to that question. I asked the founder
Speaker 1: of a left wing movement with you know, chapters all
Speaker 1: across the country. Now they're storming congressional officers, making all
Speaker 1: this noise, and they're they're they're trying to get your kids, folks.
Speaker 1: They're trying to brainwash your children. That is what they
Speaker 1: want to do. They want to use the schools to
Speaker 1: do it. They want to use the media to do it.
Speaker 1: They want to convince little kid the world's gonna end
Speaker 1: in ten years. I asked the founder of the movement,
Speaker 1: you heard it. Do you think that little kids eight, nine,
Speaker 1: ten years old understand the science behind climate change hysteria?
Speaker 1: And she says, yes, they're smart. I asked the founder
Speaker 1: of this movement, should ten year olds, do you remember
Speaker 1: what you were like when you were ten? I remember
Speaker 1: just trying to, you know, sneak my hand in the
Speaker 1: cookie jar when mom wasn't looking and running around in
Speaker 1: like onesie pajamas with Star Wars on them and trying
Speaker 1: to watch movies. I mean, she thinks that, or at
Speaker 1: least she wouldn't say that ten year olds shouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to vote. She thinks the ten year olds are
Speaker 1: really smart. And I mean, it's so so stupid, But
Speaker 1: this is the this is the problem these people, And
Speaker 1: this was you know, I reached out to producer Mike
Speaker 1: right off his interview because I knew he'd appreciate this.
Speaker 1: It's like I was talking to somebody who is in Hamas.
Speaker 1: It's like I was talking to somebody who was, you know,
Speaker 1: a Bolshevik at the early stages of the twentieth said,
Speaker 1: I mean a radical. Put your politics aside for a second.
Speaker 1: You think the ten year olds have political wisdom? Do
Speaker 1: you think that we should listen to? Well, where else
Speaker 1: should we listen to ten year olds? Well, you know
Speaker 1: what what should what should the top marginal tax rate?
Speaker 1: But should we go to war? Let's ask some ten
Speaker 1: year olds. I mean, the Green New Deal would affect
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars of economic output. It
Speaker 1: would essentially evaporated, it would take it away. It would
Speaker 1: be immensely wasteful, slow down productivity, hurt our quality of life,
Speaker 1: and it wouldn't even do anything. It's really just about
Speaker 1: a status takeover of the entirety of the American economy.
Speaker 1: But I put all that aside for a second. How
Speaker 1: do you have a conversation with somebody, How do you
Speaker 1: have a conversation with someone who thinks that ten year
Speaker 1: olds are wise when it comes to politics. You know,
Speaker 1: I was a precocious ten year old. I had a
Speaker 1: pretty big vocabulary. I thought I was I was pretty
Speaker 1: smart for ten year old. I mean I was a
Speaker 1: little you know, a little booger eating nerd at at
Speaker 1: ten years old. I mean, this is just insane, absolutely insane.
Speaker 1: But this is a movement. It's not just one person.
Speaker 1: They're building this movement. They're getting national media coverage. They're
Speaker 1: sending all practically toddlers to go say, I'm scared of
Speaker 1: dequiment changing in twelve years. You weren't gonna And they
Speaker 1: think that I'm supposed to listen to these people. Look,
Speaker 1: here's the problem. They got away with this crap with
Speaker 1: the Stoneman Douglas kids. Oh they're victims, and you know
Speaker 1: they listen. Okay, Well, they're kids. They don't they don't
Speaker 1: really know anything. They can't vote, I mean some of
Speaker 1: them can't. Some of them can't. But they don't have
Speaker 1: any wisdom, they don't have any policy knowledge. I don't
Speaker 1: care what they think. Oh dare you. They're victims. And
Speaker 1: this is the youth, this is the future. But the
Speaker 1: left loves and this stretches. This is why there this
Speaker 1: is their approach in public schools. By the way, this
Speaker 1: is also why they want universal pre K childcare, so
Speaker 1: that they can get the state apparatus at your kids
Speaker 1: as soon as possible. The brainwash them with all this
Speaker 1: nonsense as soon as possible. But the Left likes to
Speaker 1: mobilize the youth because the youth are full of emotion
Speaker 1: and the sense of their own importance and promise and
Speaker 1: do not have wisdom or experience to draw upon. Wisdom
Speaker 1: and experience are important things when you're thinking about governance,
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with the complex political systems of a
Speaker 1: country of three hundred and twenty million people with the
Speaker 1: largest and most powerful military in the history of the universe.
Speaker 1: I think wisdom and experience these are matters that these
Speaker 1: are issues that should come to the forefront and not
Speaker 1: just this is our future. But it was like speaking
Speaker 1: to a radical today. Notice how she wasn't even shy
Speaker 1: about it. She didn't even step back from questions like
Speaker 1: should ten year olds be able to vote? If a
Speaker 1: ten year old should be able to vote? I would
Speaker 1: just want to know, should a five year old be
Speaker 1: able to vote? Would the Left be comfortable indoctrinating three
Speaker 1: year olds into just walking into a voting booth and
Speaker 1: taking their little stubby finger and pushing it up, pushing
Speaker 1: it against the screen to press D for democrat. I
Speaker 1: think we all know the answers. Yes. They simply don't care.
Speaker 1: There's no principle at work for them here, the notion
Speaker 1: of being a citizen who has enough life experience and
Speaker 1: the knowledge that comes with it to at least have
Speaker 1: fully formed judgments. I mean, your brain is not even
Speaker 1: fully formed until adulthood. They've done all kinds of studies
Speaker 1: on this. Teenagers are unable to see and unable to
Speaker 1: assess the long term consequences of their actions the same
Speaker 1: way that adults can. This is why impulsive teen behavior
Speaker 1: something that parents have to reign in. It's also why
Speaker 1: parenting is so important and why The one thing that
Speaker 1: no one seems to want to talk about in this
Speaker 1: country is that a lot of the problems we have
Speaker 1: stem from a lack of parents and bad parenting. But instead,
Speaker 1: here we have let's propagandize, let's politicize little kids. There
Speaker 1: are some places where I just I cannot see, I
Speaker 1: cannot see common ground with the other side. I do
Speaker 1: not think that they have an argument. I do not
Speaker 1: think that they have a point of view that is
Speaker 1: worthy of respect. The notion that ten year old kids
Speaker 1: should be lecturing adults on climate change because they've been terrified,
Speaker 1: because they must believe. Why wouldn't they the adults who
Speaker 1: are telling them yet the world is going to end
Speaker 1: in ten years. Anyone who believes that I do not
Speaker 1: respect on this issue, they are wrong. They're wrong. This
Speaker 1: is nuts. Organizing kids in this way for this purpose
Speaker 1: is exploitation, full stop. You know, if parents want to
Speaker 1: teach their kids about politics, that's fine. You want to
Speaker 1: come together with some nationwide activist group that's going to
Speaker 1: frighten little children and then mobilize them and use them
Speaker 1: in youth marches. This is an embarrassment. And if the
Speaker 1: Left had any shame they would recognize that. So when
Speaker 1: we stood up Hill TV, we need to get the
Speaker 1: best people fast and it's not an easy process, right.
Speaker 1: You need to get very specific qualified candidates in and
Speaker 1: time is money, right, So you want to do this
Speaker 1: as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can.
Speaker 1: And that's why I went with the best possible option here,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Right. Zip recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck lets you hire the best people because
Speaker 1: zip recruiter sends your job to over a hundred of
Speaker 1: the web's leading job boards and they don't stop there.
Speaker 1: They've got incredible power, full matching technology that scans thousands
Speaker 1: of resumes to find people at the right experience and
Speaker 1: invites them to apply to your job. As applications come in,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter analyzes each one and spotlights top candidates. You're
Speaker 1: never going to miss a great match, all right right now,
Speaker 1: my listeners can try zip recruiter for free at this
Speaker 1: exclusive web address zipp recruiter dot com slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Zip recruiter is the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. So a little hard to understand
Speaker 1: what's happened psychologically to the Democratic Party that you could
Speaker 1: have such a lockstep group of people. I think all
Speaker 1: but three of the Democratic senators voted in effect to
Speaker 1: allow the killing of babies who are already born. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just pure infanticide in a way which is
Speaker 1: unthinkable in most of the world. On almost every front.
Speaker 1: They now feel compelled to rush to the most extreme positions,
Speaker 1: even if they're crazy. As somebody said the other day,
Speaker 1: that they've now become literally the party of death and taxes.
Speaker 1: To have every Democratic presidential candidate vote that it's okay
Speaker 1: to kill babies after they're born puts them in such
Speaker 1: a small minority. I don't quite see how they think
Speaker 1: they're going to create a winning campaign. This issue is
Speaker 1: not going away anytime soon, and it shouldn't go anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Even though the Democrats, including the Democrat presidential candidates thus far,
Speaker 1: who are in favor of a legal opening for infanticide,
Speaker 1: that is what they That is what they have cast
Speaker 1: their vote in favor of this week. No matter what
Speaker 1: they tell you, that is what they have done. But
Speaker 1: the Democrat media, which is unfortunately a vast majority of
Speaker 1: the media, is going to run cover for them. Interesting
Speaker 1: that my friend Ben Dominic over at the Federalist did
Speaker 1: some searches, and as of as of today in the afternoon,
Speaker 1: I haven't been able to check since I went on air,
Speaker 1: but just the fact that this was true. As of
Speaker 1: one o'clock Eastern time today, neither CNN, MSNBC, or NBC
Speaker 1: News had run a single story about how Democrats blocked
Speaker 1: a Republican effort in the Senate to pass a bill
Speaker 1: that would criminalize, for doctors, not for mothers, the practice
Speaker 1: of infanticide, you know, the killing of a baby outside
Speaker 1: the womb. None of them found that to be a
Speaker 1: story worth reporting on. None of them thought that this
Speaker 1: was something that maybe deserved any attention. We are going
Speaker 1: to continue to follow this story here because this is
Speaker 1: not aberrant. This is not something that just happened out
Speaker 1: of nowhere. The truth is that the Democrats have embraced
Speaker 1: abortion extremism in a way that I think even many
Speaker 1: on the left would have found absolutely appalling five or
Speaker 1: ten years ago. Not everyone, I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats have known that this was really their position, they
Speaker 1: just wouldn't say it. But I think some Democrats now
Speaker 1: have an unease I can't tell you what number, what percentage.
Speaker 1: But I've been speaking to some Democrats that I know,
Speaker 1: and they understand that if the American people really figure
Speaker 1: out just how extreme the left is on the issue
Speaker 1: of abortion, that there will be a reckoning. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's some polling data from the last few months to
Speaker 1: show that the trend is toward pro life, strongly toward
Speaker 1: pro life, and a vast majority of the American people
Speaker 1: opposes third trimester abortion period. Opposes it period, you know,
Speaker 1: the only time that you And then they say, well,
Speaker 1: what about the life of the mother exception? Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: the same polling shows that, you know, they are open
Speaker 1: to the exception of life of the mother, but any
Speaker 1: other reason no, And that's a strong majority of the
Speaker 1: American people. But you won't get that from the media.
Speaker 1: They don't want you to know this because look, the
Speaker 1: mainstream media has been complicit in supporting and taking money
Speaker 1: from Planned Parenthood and its donors and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it for decades. They have blood on their hands here, folks.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you a quick story about a
Speaker 1: professor at Harvard Law School, Ronald S. Sullivan, Junior. He
Speaker 1: is a faculty dean of Winthrop House. He is the
Speaker 1: first black man to serve in such a position at Harvard.
Speaker 1: He also directs Harvard's Criminal Justice Institute and Trial Advocacy Workshop.
Speaker 1: He in two thousand and eight advised he Senate campaign
Speaker 1: of Barack Obama on criminal justice, and he represented Mike
Speaker 1: Brown in the Mike Brown City of ferguson matter and
Speaker 1: has done a lot of work on criminal justice more broadly. So,
Speaker 1: you know, it is a fair a fair thing to
Speaker 1: guess that Ronald Sullivan, tenured professor at Harvard Law School,
Speaker 1: African American and social justice and just general justice reform advocate,
Speaker 1: would be somebody who you would think that Democrats would
Speaker 1: not just be okay with, but would celebrate. Right, it
Speaker 1: seems you read his bio. I see this piece here
Speaker 1: Onreason dot Com by Robbie Suave works right through his backstory,
Speaker 1: but it turns out that the professor is in a
Speaker 1: tough spot right now. In fact, many black students at
Speaker 1: Harvard are organizing to demand that he be fired. Why,
Speaker 1: you might ask, would a tenured and esteemed African American
Speaker 1: professor of law at Harvard Universe City the number one
Speaker 1: or number two, depending on who you ask, Law school
Speaker 1: in terms of admissions difficulty in the United States. Why
Speaker 1: would African American students want him to be gone? What
Speaker 1: terrible misdeed would he be guilty of? Is it a
Speaker 1: me too violation of some kind? Is there any kind
Speaker 1: of sexual misconducted issue on his part? No? Did he
Speaker 1: say something horrifyingly unpc. No. What you find out when
Speaker 1: you read this article, and this has started to get
Speaker 1: some traction in the news, and this is astonishing stuff,
Speaker 1: is that there are students at Harvard Law School who
Speaker 1: want a professor to be fired from his job because
Speaker 1: Professor Sullivan is representing Harvey Weinstein as his attorney. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: so you mean that now the social justice left has
Speaker 1: gone so far as to undermine our system of legal representation,
Speaker 1: so that if you represent somebody as their defense attorney,
Speaker 1: you are now essentially tainted by that person. Since so
Speaker 1: if you fall to the wrong side of the social
Speaker 1: justice left, and look, Harvey Weinstein's a total dirt bag
Speaker 1: and he deserves whatever he gets. But defense attorneys exist
Speaker 1: for a reason, right, We are supposed to have a
Speaker 1: justice system that has oppositional forces at work to bring
Speaker 1: out the best and most just outcome. Right, there's a
Speaker 1: reason that it exists in this way, and for law
Speaker 1: students at Harvard Law School not to understand this, in fact,
Speaker 1: to go so far against this that they want him
Speaker 1: to be fired. And you even have the Association of
Speaker 1: Black Harvard Women saying that he must go because this
Speaker 1: is trauma inducing. They say, not only are these students
Speaker 1: a bunch of babies, but you also notice how utterly
Speaker 1: totalitarian they are in their instinct here, which is to
Speaker 1: get rid of somebody that they don't that they disagree with.
Speaker 1: Fire him. He should be fired. There is a completely legitimate,
Speaker 1: I would even argue compelling reason within our system for
Speaker 1: there to be legal representation, robust legal representation for the accused.
Speaker 1: People in law school who are concerned with justice matters
Speaker 1: in general should know this. But at Harvard it's more
Speaker 1: important to virtue signal. And this is what I've been
Speaker 1: saying for a long time. Not only have these schools
Speaker 1: been infiltrated by this leftist and statist group think, but
Speaker 1: they're becoming increasingly less impressive places because their primary reason
Speaker 1: for existing is the properation of the mythology around diversity.
Speaker 1: As the ultimate strength of all these institutions, and the
Speaker 1: pretense that these elite academies places like Harvard are just
Speaker 1: supposed to be creating the social justice leadership up tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I thought they were supposed to educate the smartest people
Speaker 1: in the country. They don't do that anymore at a
Speaker 1: lot of these places, at least only some of the
Speaker 1: people they educated really smart. A lot of them are
Speaker 1: not very impressive, including a bunch of law students at
Speaker 1: Harvard apparently bucking. It's time for roll call bad one.
Speaker 1: That one's got a little kick to it. I like
Speaker 1: that one, uh, Tino. We're gonna get right into roll
Speaker 1: call today. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton, do not
Speaker 1: forget see pack. I'll be there tomorrow Thursday, and I'll
Speaker 1: be there on Friday, so I'll be speaking Friday morning
Speaker 1: and moderating a panel Friday evening. But just if you
Speaker 1: wander the ground at Seepack, look out for the swoop
Speaker 1: at the Gaylord National Convention Center in Maryland, just outside
Speaker 1: of DC at the Conservative Political Action Conference, I will
Speaker 1: be there all right, Tino writes on Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton. Hey Buck, I spoke with Mark Levin
Speaker 1: yesterday and wrote up for him a short list of
Speaker 1: points and issues as they relate to Denmark and the
Speaker 1: Democrats posturing in regard to free healthcare, etc. I was
Speaker 1: born there and left my business there for a reason.
Speaker 1: Maybe shoot me an email. I will send it to
Speaker 1: you as you may find some of the facts and
Speaker 1: talking points useful in the coming debates. Tino, I will
Speaker 1: send you an email right now. Actually, I can just
Speaker 1: tell you official Team Buck at gmail dot com Brandon
Speaker 1: in Hey Buck great show on Venezuela. Yesterday. I've been
Speaker 1: helping out a friend of a friend in Venezuela, a
Speaker 1: single mom of two girls, for the past year. Yesterday
Speaker 1: we sent over the counter medicine, common over the counter
Speaker 1: medicines and toothcare items that are impossible to obtain in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: along with the antibiotics to kill the parasites that she
Speaker 1: and her two children have due to the bad water.
Speaker 1: My friend's brother owns a shipping company based out of
Speaker 1: Miami and is able to personally deliver the items to
Speaker 1: this single mom. My friends tells me, tell me that
Speaker 1: my wife. My friend tells sorry. My friend tells my
Speaker 1: wife that for dinner, the girls are getting sugar water.
Speaker 1: They're desperate. My friend is a legal immigrant from Venezuela
Speaker 1: and a strong, strong Trump supporter. Please everyone keep these
Speaker 1: people in your prayers. Take care, Brother Airborne all the way. Well, Brandon,
Speaker 1: it's a very kind and very Christian thing you're doing
Speaker 1: to help out this woman in need. It certainly illustrates
Speaker 1: the degree of economic desperation and the amount of despair
Speaker 1: that is spreading across and has been for a long
Speaker 1: time across Venezuela in a world where there could be
Speaker 1: so much abundance, and in the case of Venezuela, given
Speaker 1: its oil reserves, there should be. There should be so
Speaker 1: much abundance. I just think it's important for us to
Speaker 1: keep in mind that this is the result of bad
Speaker 1: decision making by people in power, and decision making by
Speaker 1: people in power for sure, David Rights take the pain platoon. Indeed, David,
Speaker 1: I'm assuming you listened on Podcast Delayed, because otherwise, if
Speaker 1: you listen to the show yesterday, you would know the answer.
Speaker 1: And it's not fun to say the answer if you
Speaker 1: know it. No, No, not fun. It's like I remember,
Speaker 1: I used to do this in the earliest days of
Speaker 1: my media career. We would do this website Trivia Night
Speaker 1: at a couple of local bars in New York. And
Speaker 1: if I remember, I think BuzzFeed was there and Gawker
Speaker 1: was there and some of these real left wing sites.
Speaker 1: But I got invited, and I was young, and I
Speaker 1: was young and naive, and I would go. And I
Speaker 1: wish that was amazing that some people would really actively
Speaker 1: try to listen in to what the other teams were
Speaker 1: saying on Trivia Night to cheat. Who cheats on Trivia Night?
Speaker 1: I mean, the prize was like another round of beers.
Speaker 1: You know, I just don't understand some people. Doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense to me. John writes, as a fan of
Speaker 1: all your accents, I gotta say your Trey Gaudy sounds
Speaker 1: more like Bill Cosby than anything world. John after said, disagree.
Speaker 1: I think m Trey Garty sounds a lot more luck
Speaker 1: Tray Garretty. But I'm gonna have to stop because some
Speaker 1: of you really don't like the Trey Gaudy. And I look,
Speaker 1: I don't like strawberry ice cream. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: mean I don't like it compared to other ice creams.
Speaker 1: I mean, if I'm really in the mood for ice cream,
Speaker 1: and all there is is strawberry. I'm gonna I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna touch it. I don't want any of that stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a chocolate guy. Number one, vanilla, number two, strawberries.
Speaker 1: Not even listen, Brandon, important question? What is the best
Speaker 1: flavor of ice cream? Go vanilla? But are you see dude?
Speaker 1: Really you're gonna You're gonna come with vanilla. A guy
Speaker 1: who has a podcast about guns and roses is gonna
Speaker 1: tell me his favorite ice cream is vanilla with sprinkles.
Speaker 1: I do? I mean, I have the palette of a
Speaker 1: ten year old unless those sprinkles are like laced with LSD. Man.
Speaker 1: A lot of people right now are like, what is
Speaker 1: going on? I would have thought you'd be like a
Speaker 1: Ben and Jerry's, you know, Chunky Monkey, Rocky Road, one
Speaker 1: of those I don't get to say here, what's up?
Speaker 1: I didn't even do to Usually you're talking to the
Speaker 1: ladies across the hall. I don't know. Are you even
Speaker 1: there right now? Yeah? We were talking about ice cream.
Speaker 1: That's what we were talking about. Oh, produce, Oh, producer, Mike.
Speaker 1: He came to play at producer, Mike, what is the
Speaker 1: best ice cream flavor? Oh? Man, it's a three way
Speaker 1: tie for me. Well, technically it will be a five
Speaker 1: way tie because it's uh men chocolate chip hagendaes uhdultad
Speaker 1: h Hagendas. And then I love the what's the name
Speaker 1: of the Vodella tucket strawberry altogether? I don't know what
Speaker 1: that is. It's the um sounds good, ye smorgers board.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, there's a name for it. It's
Speaker 1: the I will tell your Dulce dela call on Haggendas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: is a good one, Yeah it is. That is a
Speaker 1: stand out flavor in the Hogendas. And I'm also a
Speaker 1: mint chocolate chip fan always and at all times. But
Speaker 1: I if I could only have one ice cream the
Speaker 1: rest of my life, the correct answer is pistachio. I
Speaker 1: love pistachio, which is a bit what producer, Mike, get
Speaker 1: your get your bougie ice cream nous on and go
Speaker 1: get yourself some like Brooklyn Hipster pistachio small batch ice cream.
Speaker 1: You'll be all about it. This reminds me we should
Speaker 1: get an ice cream sponsor on the show. I'm all
Speaker 1: about it. Yeah, all right, So, but you had some
Speaker 1: good ones there, Brandon. At least you threw the sprinkles in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Oh it's uh na pole the Poulton,
Speaker 1: Napoleton Neapolitanapolitan? Is that it? I don't know. You tell me.
Speaker 1: I've never been trying to look at that real quick,
Speaker 1: and I was fumbling there, but I couldn't that that.
Speaker 1: Here's what I do with the Niopoltan. This is this
Speaker 1: is what I call the fat Boy Special. I get
Speaker 1: the niopolten ice cream. I get a couple of waffles,
Speaker 1: and I heat up the waffles and I make a
Speaker 1: ice cream sandwich on waffles. Try it. It's delicious. I
Speaker 1: mean that does I will say that does sound good.
Speaker 1: It sounds a little bit like becoming, you know, pre
Speaker 1: diabetic overnight, but it is. It does sound good. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Neapolitan ice cream. I have never even heard of this.
Speaker 1: It is separate blocks of vanilla, chocolate and strawberry together.
Speaker 1: Look at you, dude, You're you're teaching me things about
Speaker 1: ice cream. Yeah, I've had that since I was like it.
Speaker 1: Also teach you how to put it on ten pounds
Speaker 1: real quick if you want. Oh my god, Well, unfortunately
Speaker 1: I don't need any help with that. But conversation for
Speaker 1: another time. Back into the roll call here for a moment, folks,
Speaker 1: Richard writes, we need to break the engine of the world.
Speaker 1: Buck every day. The stuff I see and here keeps
Speaker 1: taking me back to a movie series I saw a
Speaker 1: while back. Atlas Shrugged is the name. If you haven't
Speaker 1: seen it, i'd suggest you do, Richard. I have not
Speaker 1: seen the movie. I'm certainly familiar with Iron Rand's books,
Speaker 1: and I heard the Atlas Shrugged movie was kind of me.
Speaker 1: But I'm willing to I'm willing to give it a
Speaker 1: shot if you tell me it's good. Sean. Right, Oh,
Speaker 1: I knew this was coming. I love you like a brother,
Speaker 1: but you're game. But you'r gaudy. Impression sounds like a
Speaker 1: Frank Caliendo impression of John Madden doing an impression of
Speaker 1: the Swedish chef. So you're gonna get in a shotgun
Speaker 1: information you get through a long bomb in the enser.
Speaker 1: It kind of kind of works. Actually look at that,
Speaker 1: all right? All right, Sean, I know I I gotta
Speaker 1: put the tray the trade gaudy away. People are not
Speaker 1: as I mean, my Bernie is amazing because I'm from
Speaker 1: New York City, so we all understand it. Like I
Speaker 1: got the burn, I feel the Burn twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: That didn't that didn't sound right. That's not that's not
Speaker 1: the image that we wanted to come up with. Um.
Speaker 1: But I do have a good Bernie Sanders impression, which
Speaker 1: is important. I think it's important. James rights the movie quote.
Speaker 1: You didn't know. I should have been more clear. Now
Speaker 1: you know what I do for a living. You should
Speaker 1: have waited I was worth It is from The Expendables.
Speaker 1: This was a quote someone else mentioned, not the Platoon quote.
Speaker 1: I knew that one to great show regardless. James, well, James,
Speaker 1: you are the quote expert extradina there. I have never
Speaker 1: seen The Expendables, so I can't speak to it. A
Speaker 1: movie that is a send up of all action movies.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It seemed a little too contrived for me,
Speaker 1: but I know they made a second one, so it
Speaker 1: must have made money. David hey Buck, I was flipping
Speaker 1: through the FiOS menu tonight and saw the Trump Dynasty
Speaker 1: listed on A and E pretty much all night. I
Speaker 1: don't remember them seeing them run a Clinton or Bush
Speaker 1: dynasty back in the day. They come at this guy
Speaker 1: at every angle. They're definitely failing. Living in VA, Virginia,
Speaker 1: Northam fair Fan and Herring are helping the conservative cause.
Speaker 1: The further they dig in, the more we benefit. Take
Speaker 1: care of Dave, you know, Dave. None of those three Democrats,
Speaker 1: none of those three Democrats are going to resign. And
Speaker 1: I've thought that for a while, but it is. It's
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable when you get down to it, that not
Speaker 1: one of them is going to have to step down.
Speaker 1: When you when you see how democrats deal with the opposition,
Speaker 1: how Democrats treat Republicans that are enmeshed in a scandal,
Speaker 1: whether there's any merit to it or not. Obviously there's
Speaker 1: a different standard at work here. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it'll really help at the national level. I mean, people
Speaker 1: people don't spend as much time thinking about how evil
Speaker 1: many Democrats are as I'd like. But there you have it,
Speaker 1: Danessa Rights, Hey Buck, I'm new to the team, but
Speaker 1: I found myself looking forward to listening to your show
Speaker 1: every night. I was wondering if you could give a
Speaker 1: shout out to my brother Dakota. He is up and
Speaker 1: coming as a singer songwriter and you can find him
Speaker 1: on Instagram and Facebook under Dakota Sailor say l O
Speaker 1: R Music. Shield's High Keep up the good work well, Danessa,
Speaker 1: asking ye shall receive. First of all, welcome to the team.
Speaker 1: Great to have you listening. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining Team Buck honor and a privilege joining your fellow
Speaker 1: patriots across the country. And as for Dakota, that's great.
Speaker 1: We wish him all the best of luck Instagram and
Speaker 1: Facebook Dakota Sailor, guys, you can go check him out.
Speaker 1: I'll check him out. We'll see if he's good. If
Speaker 1: he's really good, maybe we could have him do some
Speaker 1: you know, intro music for the show. That'd be kind
Speaker 1: of fun. It'd be fun to get that going. I
Speaker 1: want to check it out here. My college roommates were
Speaker 1: in a band that was interesting. Stories for another time.
Speaker 1: John right shields high Buck. To be honest, you're Bill
Speaker 1: Cowsby sounds a lot more like Bill. You're sorry, You're
Speaker 1: Trey Goudy sounds a lot more like Bill Cosby. Darn it,
Speaker 1: Now that a couple of you have independently said this,
Speaker 1: it makes me think that maybe my trade Goudi does
Speaker 1: sound more like Bill Cosby. You're general putting pups. I've
Speaker 1: never thought that I really had a Cosby, And you know,
Speaker 1: I never really watched The Cosby Show either, can't can't
Speaker 1: say that I was a watcher of the Cosby Show
Speaker 1: of all the I spend too much time in my youth,
Speaker 1: probably watching TV, which maybe comes across during the show.
Speaker 1: I read a lot of books too, though. All right,
Speaker 1: gonna close up shop tonight. To be sure to come
Speaker 1: find me at Seepack Thursday and Friday. I'll be wandering around.
Speaker 1: I'll be the guy with a swoop. You know what
Speaker 1: that means. Talk to you tomorrow, Team Shields High. If
Speaker 1: you need background checks done for your business, you need
Speaker 1: to make sure you check out my friends Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: The CEO, Mark Buckman is a buddy of mine, and
Speaker 1: this guy is a veteran, a patriot, and somebody that
Speaker 1: you can trust. And background checks are essential to making
Speaker 1: sure that you bring in people that you can trust
Speaker 1: to work for you. A lot of the other background
Speaker 1: check organizations out there, a lot of people to do
Speaker 1: background investigations in vetting. They'll send it over se they'll
Speaker 1: outsource it. They'll even park this sensitive data that you
Speaker 1: give them on servers that aren't even on us soil.
Speaker 1: Don't go with any of that stuff. Call my friends
Speaker 1: at Global Verification Network eight seven seven six nine, five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine is a number again Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: Or go to MYGVN dot com again. That's my GVN
Speaker 1: dot com. Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned