Speaker 1: Mr garbusch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not. When President of the United
Speaker 1: State take it to a bank together, we will make
Speaker 1: America great again. We'll never sharend. It's what you've been
Speaker 1: waiting for all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the
Speaker 1: conversation called buck toll Free at eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to eight
Speaker 1: to five the future of talk radio. Buck Sexton, the Makers,
Speaker 1: you said that you would be open to signing just
Speaker 1: about any immigration deal that that vicar partisan group of
Speaker 1: blockmakers said to you. Would you be willing to sign
Speaker 1: an immigration deal that ultimately does not include funding for
Speaker 1: the border wall or would that be for you? No,
Speaker 1: it's got to include the wall. We need the wall
Speaker 1: for security, we need the wall for safety, we need
Speaker 1: the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in. I
Speaker 1: would imagine that the people in the room, both Democrat
Speaker 1: and Republican, I really believe they're gonna come up with
Speaker 1: a solution to the DUCA problem, which has been going
Speaker 1: on for a long time, and maybe beyond that immigration
Speaker 1: as a whole. But any solution has to include the wall,
Speaker 1: because without the wall, it all doesn't work. Without the wall,
Speaker 1: it all doesn't work. Buck Sexton here, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining me in the Freedom Hut, My friends, colleagues,
Speaker 1: fellow patriots. Good to have you with me. As always,
Speaker 1: that was President Trump earlier today. You will note I
Speaker 1: I hope that yesterday we're throwing up the panic flag
Speaker 1: a little bit because the presidents had a very interesting
Speaker 1: immigration meeting with members of Congress that was televised. We
Speaker 1: could see the give and take of the legislative debate
Speaker 1: process in action. People are worried because the President said
Speaker 1: it needs to be a bill of love, and he
Speaker 1: would be willing to take the heat. But today he's
Speaker 1: saying there has to be a wall. And you know what,
Speaker 1: if the president gets that wall, think think about the
Speaker 1: message that that's gonna send to the base, to the Democrats,
Speaker 1: to the left, everybody. It's gonna show a president who
Speaker 1: follows through on not just some promises, but core promises, central,
Speaker 1: central to his platform, to his agenda. And wow, that
Speaker 1: would be rocket fuel for the rest of the Trump term.
Speaker 1: Or terms. As I see it, it would be a
Speaker 1: phenomenal if he manages to get that. So I think
Speaker 1: we should take some degree of reassurance from the president's
Speaker 1: statements today very clear. I don't know how he could
Speaker 1: be more clear about how we're gonna have a wall. Well,
Speaker 1: one thing else that was interesting about yesterday didn't really
Speaker 1: get enough attention, in my opinion, and that is not
Speaker 1: only did the President show and I said this on
Speaker 1: the show yesterday, but show us that it's on Congress right,
Speaker 1: they have to put something in front of him to sign,
Speaker 1: and if they come up with nothing, it can't be
Speaker 1: all the President didn't lead or whatever. He has said
Speaker 1: what the key points are of an immigration deal. He
Speaker 1: has made it very straightforward in terms of what he wants,
Speaker 1: and now Congress has to get it done and he
Speaker 1: says he will sign it. But there was a secondary
Speaker 1: purpose that did not get nearly enough. I think play
Speaker 1: some perhaps caught on a bit later in the game,
Speaker 1: and I just wanted to take a take a ulligan,
Speaker 1: take another another shot at this one. Jake Tapper even
Speaker 1: over at CNN, if you're wondering if pushing aside those
Speaker 1: concerns was at least partly the point of these on
Speaker 1: camera negotiations for the Bill of Love. You're not being cynical,
Speaker 1: You're being correct. And in fact, the Republican National Committee
Speaker 1: Rapid Response director sent out this take on the meeting quote.
Speaker 1: Many in the media has spent the last week hyper
Speaker 1: ventilating over a phony writer's opinions, But the American people
Speaker 1: just witnessed President trumpily arguably the most transparent substantive policy
Speaker 1: discussion with Congress maybe ever. So this is a very
Speaker 1: important that was tappered CNN. And just because Tapper says
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean it's wrong. He actually was. He made
Speaker 1: his name, I will remind you. I mean now he
Speaker 1: does a lot of a lot of CNN's bidding and
Speaker 1: a lot of anti Trump stuff. I'm very clear on that.
Speaker 1: But he made his name back I think when he
Speaker 1: was an ABC reporter by just occasionally asking President Obama's
Speaker 1: White House Press secretary or a bound himself a real question,
Speaker 1: not how does it feel to be this artist person
Speaker 1: in the history of the world, the most amazing, the
Speaker 1: most moral, the most handsome, the most perfect. He would
Speaker 1: actually ask occasionally, I'm not saying a lot, you know,
Speaker 1: it was once in a while, but he would ask
Speaker 1: a real question, Oh Jack Tapper, how could you? But
Speaker 1: his point there is worth noting. Or he's really actually
Speaker 1: illustrating or highlighting a point that somebody else made. And
Speaker 1: that is one of the effects of yesterday. And look
Speaker 1: this That was a Trump administration decision right to to
Speaker 1: televise it in that way, to show it, to bring
Speaker 1: us into the discussion, to bring the American people into
Speaker 1: the thick of the immigration debate, with the members of
Speaker 1: Congress there and we're seeing what they're saying, we're seeing
Speaker 1: the questions, we're seeing it in real time. Not only
Speaker 1: did it give us a particular window into what is
Speaker 1: among the most important policy issues facing this country, it
Speaker 1: is really an existential issue for the United States of
Speaker 1: America in the long term. Forget climate change, this other stuff,
Speaker 1: huge threat immigration. If we don't get this right, the
Speaker 1: country changes and not for the better forever. Those are
Speaker 1: the stakes right now of the immigration discussion and debate.
Speaker 1: But the secondary component of it was that Trump Trump
Speaker 1: was able to smack down this Michael Wolf Fire and
Speaker 1: Fury book. As an aside, there's a book from the
Speaker 1: Second World War, I believe called Fire and Fury that
Speaker 1: has shot up to the top of the best seller
Speaker 1: list because people are buying that book. It just happens
Speaker 1: to be called Fire and Fury. That guy has got
Speaker 1: to be psyched, right, That's that's great. You know, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the book was published like a decade ago,
Speaker 1: people like I need Fire and Furious. You know, something
Speaker 1: about some might even be a great book. I have
Speaker 1: no idea, but I think it's battles from the Second
Speaker 1: World War. Uh. But by having the press conference, letting
Speaker 1: the American people see how does Trump interact with members
Speaker 1: of Congress, How does he run that kind of a meeting?
Speaker 1: How does he handle that give and take of debate
Speaker 1: and discussion. Any honest person would see that and say
Speaker 1: to themselves, hold on a second. This is the president
Speaker 1: who's crazy. This is the president who can't string a
Speaker 1: string together a sentence. This is the president who has
Speaker 1: no ideas and has no leadership. And all the stuff
Speaker 1: that's in there right is sloppy, insane. Seen all these things,
Speaker 1: I mean, all this just junk. They're trying to pile
Speaker 1: in Trump. You watch that meeting yesterday, and not only
Speaker 1: did you see what's going on with the immigration policy debate.
Speaker 1: But you saw the President United States in action in
Speaker 1: a way that just blows to smithereens this whole narrative
Speaker 1: of the book fire and fury. So it was a
Speaker 1: two for It was a double whammy. This is what
Speaker 1: Trump has to do. This is what this admitted station
Speaker 1: must continue to do, and that is to get around
Speaker 1: or defeat the naysayers. Yes, as Trump puts it, the haters,
Speaker 1: the liars, the fake news, all of that with success,
Speaker 1: with results. The economy already is and you see it
Speaker 1: with all these different metrics, and you've got titans of
Speaker 1: industry and many of the smartest people on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: in manufacturing sector, in the entrepreneurial world. They're all saying, look,
Speaker 1: I don't even like Trump. I don't even like Trump's
Speaker 1: policies on X, Y or z outside of the economy. Right,
Speaker 1: maybe they disagree with them on this or that, but
Speaker 1: on but when it comes to economic optimism and the
Speaker 1: markets and hiring and wages, and which was also central,
Speaker 1: all of that was central to the Trump message, which
Speaker 1: is that the you know, the forgotten men and women
Speaker 1: of this country in these differ sectors, competing with offshoring
Speaker 1: of jobs, competing with the importation of cheap illegal foreign labor.
Speaker 1: All of that, stagnant wages and a sense that you
Speaker 1: can't get ahead. Trump is so far following through on
Speaker 1: those promises and doing it with results, not just words,
Speaker 1: not just a lot of you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: jaw jaw, a lot of you know yadida talking about stuff. No,
Speaker 1: Trump is making it happen. This is why I don't
Speaker 1: get to spun up. I don't get we used to
Speaker 1: say people would say the bureaucracy, you know, it gives
Speaker 1: me heartburn, um, but I don't get over uh over anxious.
Speaker 1: I don't get upset. I don't get wrapped around the
Speaker 1: axle when Trump tweets something that I'm like, well, I
Speaker 1: don't really know what he's I wouldn't have done that.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. And also, all
Speaker 1: these people who have been so desperate to make you
Speaker 1: think that it matters in the media and elsewhere. Maybe
Speaker 1: they're your neighbors, maybe they're people see at work or
Speaker 1: the people you see on TV. They're wrong. They've been
Speaker 1: wrong so far, and it's one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: I think we've we've begun to see a phenomenon that
Speaker 1: will continue to play out, which is that the more
Speaker 1: this is crazy, I know, but just stay with me
Speaker 1: on it, the more successful this presidency is. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean in rhetorical terms. I don't mean in slapping
Speaker 1: down the fake news, as much as I love that,
Speaker 1: and it is a fantastic spectator sport, and I try
Speaker 1: to do my fair share of bucks slaps here as well.
Speaker 1: I try to, you know, make sure that we hold
Speaker 1: these different media entities to account and give them a
Speaker 1: free ride on the school bus once in a while.
Speaker 1: But the more successful Trump is, the more they will
Speaker 1: hate him. Because the more successful he is, the more
Speaker 1: obvious it becomes to anybody who has had any doubts
Speaker 1: that they've been lying about this administration. They've been stacking
Speaker 1: the deck against him. They've been doing everything in their
Speaker 1: power to prevent the very successes that are just beginning,
Speaker 1: just beginning to become irrefutable, strong market, strong economy regular
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to you about regulations later in the show.
Speaker 1: People are becoming believers, you know, And it's kind of
Speaker 1: amazing that it's taken this long in a sense, because
Speaker 1: the regulatory environment of the obamaministration was in. You're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about insanity. It was insane. And you know, whether
Speaker 1: you agree with Trump or not, whether you know, whether
Speaker 1: you're somebody that likes the tweeting hates the tweeting. If
Speaker 1: you're trying to run a small business and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden you don't have to spend dozens of hours
Speaker 1: and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars complying with
Speaker 1: with completely bizarre, useless owners federal regulations, you start to think,
Speaker 1: maybe this Trump guys onto something, Maybe he's got something
Speaker 1: going here. It is all about results, it's all about
Speaker 1: doing things that benefit the American people. And what as
Speaker 1: I said, it will be amazing to watch it play
Speaker 1: out because the bed the more successful Trump is, the
Speaker 1: louder they'll squream about Russia, the louder they will yell
Speaker 1: about how he's needs to be taken out of office
Speaker 1: by the twenty five amendment. I mean, they won't quit,
Speaker 1: they will not stop. And that's why the only response
Speaker 1: that Trump can and will have is the courage of
Speaker 1: his convictions and the implementation of an agenda that we're
Speaker 1: already saying it is already working. But immigration, immigration, is key,
Speaker 1: and we can't take the pressure off, can't take the
Speaker 1: heat off here, presidents at a wall today, I'm hearing
Speaker 1: things about a wall in you know, within ten years
Speaker 1: we'll have a seven miles Okay, I mean, let's let's
Speaker 1: get the first hundred on the books. A S A P.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't want this to be Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a wall, but by the time we have
Speaker 1: a wall, everybody's gonna have a jet pack, because then
Speaker 1: a wall won't won't really be that useful. You know.
Speaker 1: If it's like the future of the jetsins where people
Speaker 1: can fly around and little flying cars or jet packs
Speaker 1: or whatever they've got everywhere, a wall is not gonna
Speaker 1: be as good. Okay, we can't wait fifty years for
Speaker 1: a wall. Need a wall to start now, so we'll
Speaker 1: talk more about that. And also the most I can't
Speaker 1: even say it. It's tough with superlatives because the left
Speaker 1: is so dishonest, unfair and crazy, particularly when it comes
Speaker 1: to dealing with this White House and dealing with the
Speaker 1: Republican Party right now, that to say it's the craziest
Speaker 1: judicial decision ever or the craziest judicial decision ever under Trump,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure, but it's close. It's close
Speaker 1: to the worst court decisions mandating a federal judge in
Speaker 1: California has been. This just came out today I read.
Speaker 1: The first thing I did this morning is probably why
Speaker 1: I threw my neck out. I was so annoyed I
Speaker 1: did of my neck is killing me right now. But
Speaker 1: first thing I did today, and I like a lie,
Speaker 1: I did it in better read through on my phone
Speaker 1: forty nine pages of a decision from a circuit court
Speaker 1: judge in California, where the short version I'll get into
Speaker 1: a longer version with you in a few minutes because
Speaker 1: it's worth exploring at But the short word version is
Speaker 1: one judge thinks that he can usurp the executive branch
Speaker 1: chiefs prerogative can essentially tell him how to use his discretion.
Speaker 1: Some judge in California is telling Trump this is your call,
Speaker 1: and this is how you're gonna make the call when
Speaker 1: it comes to immigration, specifically to DACA. I'll work, I'll
Speaker 1: talk you through, we'll go through the details. It's important
Speaker 1: at all. But it's just hashtag resistance, resistance. Pardon me,
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance, never Trump nonsense from yet another judge out
Speaker 1: on the left coast. We'll get into that packed show today.
Speaker 1: My friends a lot I want to talk to you about,
Speaker 1: but also want to hear from you two of course
Speaker 1: eight four or four to eight to five, eight four
Speaker 1: four nine, Buck, I'll be right back their instances. Look
Speaker 1: at what happened in Israel. They put up the wall.
Speaker 1: They sailed solved the very major problem. We need the wall.
Speaker 1: We have to have the wall for security purposes, securities
Speaker 1: number one, and so the answers have to have the wall.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I have to have the wall, Presidents, making
Speaker 1: it very clear, Bucks accent back with you here on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. We wanted to take some of
Speaker 1: your calls before we get our next guest coming up.
Speaker 1: Who's going to be the acting Director of Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement. We got him joining us on the show.
Speaker 1: Director Homan will be with us, Thomas Homan, and can
Speaker 1: tell us about what's the reality right now of illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants crossing into the country, crossings in the country, also
Speaker 1: workplace enforcement, a bunch of raids at seven elevens across
Speaker 1: the country. We got the guy at the top of
Speaker 1: the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency of the United States
Speaker 1: to join us here in just a few minutes to
Speaker 1: address that. So he'll give us a real view of
Speaker 1: what's what's the ground truth of all this, right, what's
Speaker 1: really happening out there, so we can factor that in
Speaker 1: when we're talking about Trump and immigration everything's doing. But
Speaker 1: he noted there with Israel that that also came from
Speaker 1: a press con or some questions with the press were
Speaker 1: able to pose earlier today. And yeah, Israel, I mean
Speaker 1: I remembered I was actually spending a lot of time
Speaker 1: studying Israel and Israeli Palestinian issues at the time I
Speaker 1: was in school, but I had I've been working at
Speaker 1: a Midi stink tank and working on that issue specifically
Speaker 1: was very much front of mind. And Israel had a
Speaker 1: terrible time with suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorists who
Speaker 1: were coming in the country and just wreaking havoc and carnage,
Speaker 1: and it was terrible. They built a wall and it
Speaker 1: stopped it just And I'm not saying that was the
Speaker 1: only thing. Israel has a tremendous security service beyond just
Speaker 1: the wall, right, But no one saying the wall would
Speaker 1: be the only thing either, But it helped whole hell
Speaker 1: of a lot. We'll talk to our acting Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement head in just a few moments here, so
Speaker 1: stay with me for that. Tim in Ohio, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Listen. First, before we get the immigration,
Speaker 1: I want to tell you a few comments about your
Speaker 1: Shields High episode. Oh sure. I played the Charles Mantel
Speaker 1: and the Day of podcast for the guys in the
Speaker 1: show on the other day and everybody loved it. We
Speaker 1: had a we Gotta we gone after and everybody loved
Speaker 1: it there. So my question is, well, thank you. I'm
Speaker 1: coming out the next was coming out on Monday, Monday, Monday, Monday,
Speaker 1: my friend this Monday, next Monday. Get into it. You
Speaker 1: gotta subscribe iTunes. Oh well, yeah, I'm we're listening. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. But I had to throw a plug in there. Tim.
Speaker 1: You know it goes. Oh we lost him on Habben.
Speaker 1: We're having so much fun with Tim and he We
Speaker 1: didn't drop him, did we. You guys just felt like
Speaker 1: he was saying too many nice things. You just didn't
Speaker 1: want me to get a swelled head. I know how
Speaker 1: it is, you know, I do my little history podcast.
Speaker 1: It starts blowing up all of a sudden, Everyone's like, hey,
Speaker 1: keep your feet on the ground. Sexton. No, sorry, I
Speaker 1: don't know what happened there. Apologies Tim from Ohio. We
Speaker 1: just lost you there for a second. And in Virginia
Speaker 1: we got about a minute. But we want to get
Speaker 1: you in. What's up man, Good evening, Mr Sexton. As
Speaker 1: I wait with helplicating hurt and guesting breath for your
Speaker 1: show every night, I just have to tell you that
Speaker 1: you're intro is fabulous. You know, it's timeless. It works
Speaker 1: all the time. The show intro for this show, okay, cool?
Speaker 1: You know you know I can tell you this. I
Speaker 1: actually I actually built that show intro myself. I'm serious. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm a man of many talents. And but thank you
Speaker 1: for all your support of the show and Shields High.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Thank you and appreciate it. Bye bye. Um.
Speaker 1: So there we have it. Uh, we've got like I said,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk more about immigration. What is the state
Speaker 1: of legal immigration into the country right now? Can we
Speaker 1: enforce certain aspects of the law. Well, the answers yes, obviously,
Speaker 1: much better than we do. I've also got this decision
Speaker 1: from a court out in California. I read through. I
Speaker 1: don't know how many other hosts on TV or radio
Speaker 1: could say this, but I read through the entire thing
Speaker 1: because I do my own stuff. I read it all.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you about it. It is. It is a giant, steaming,
Speaker 1: tri Sarah Tops sized pile of poop. It is terrible.
Speaker 1: It is the worst legal analysis you will see out
Speaker 1: of California in a long time. We'll get into that,
Speaker 1: so stay with Themigoration top of the news cycle today,
Speaker 1: and we're very fortunate to be joined by Acting ICE
Speaker 1: Director Thomas Holman, who is with us now on the line. Thomas,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for calling in. Thank you for
Speaker 1: having me, sir. Uh First, all right, talk to me
Speaker 1: a bit about your your reaction to this court ruling
Speaker 1: that's just effectively telling the Trump administration that they have
Speaker 1: to act a certain way when it comes to presidential discretion. Look,
Speaker 1: there's there's so many liberal court rulings out there right
Speaker 1: now that hamper what we're trying to do. I mean,
Speaker 1: I got court ruins out there that don't let me
Speaker 1: remove people that committed serious crimes to this country. I
Speaker 1: got court rulings that tell me how long I can
Speaker 1: detain somebody. I mean, this is when when this whole
Speaker 1: docutor session discussion started, we sent a list of policy
Speaker 1: and legislative changes up on the hill. There can't be
Speaker 1: a clean doctor, but we need fixed. We need to
Speaker 1: fix this system or we're gonna have a doctor discussion
Speaker 1: ten years from now. Let's finally fix this system, overturn
Speaker 1: some of these judicial decisions, and and make sense of
Speaker 1: what we're doing. Use the analogy at a few minutes
Speaker 1: going on another interview. You know, if you got a
Speaker 1: leaky tire, you can put air in that tire every day.
Speaker 1: You can fix the tire. Let's fix this tire. Let's
Speaker 1: finally fix immigration. This president, under his leadership, we got
Speaker 1: we had a forty five year LOLd and the illegal
Speaker 1: immigration crossings. We're on the right trail. Let us, let
Speaker 1: us fix us. Let us make these changes to fix
Speaker 1: the problem once for for all. So you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to have a doctor deal, then you've got
Speaker 1: to fix underlying problems with We can't do a clean
Speaker 1: doctor deal that. We we need a wall, we need
Speaker 1: inter your enforcement. We need to be able to remove
Speaker 1: people that violate the loss this country. We need some
Speaker 1: of these court decisions overturned. We need to be able
Speaker 1: to do our job and protect this country. Tell me
Speaker 1: about these UH, you're the acting Director of Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement. What were these raids? What happened? Here's some
Speaker 1: reporting today about seven elevens nationwide UH targeted in anti
Speaker 1: illegal immigration employment rates. Well, like I said, when I
Speaker 1: became a director, I gave a commitment, we're gonna we're
Speaker 1: gonna step up work site enforcement. It's against the law
Speaker 1: to her and he go ailing to work. UH. And
Speaker 1: it's as an as an enticement to for the immigration people.
Speaker 1: You know they're going to if they're lucky enough to
Speaker 1: get by the bordatrow. They're come here to work. They're
Speaker 1: coming here to make money, they're coming here to be
Speaker 1: with family. We got to take that magnet away. Is
Speaker 1: against the law of heart illegal amilies. That we're going
Speaker 1: to force a law that for increase in those investigations
Speaker 1: this year. This is a nationwide investigation. We're gonna hit
Speaker 1: small companies, gonna hit big companies, go minium sized companies.
Speaker 1: We're going to enforce law. We need to. We need
Speaker 1: to remove that magnet that just infices more illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: more people guy could try to come to this country
Speaker 1: and work more BORD relations. We put at risk, more
Speaker 1: of my officers put at risk for immigration. This is
Speaker 1: one piece of the puzzle that we have to fix
Speaker 1: to to really fix the border problem and secure that border.
Speaker 1: Director Holman, is the Trump administration committed to e verify
Speaker 1: as part of the package for this immigration negotiation currently,
Speaker 1: and what can you tell us about the effectiveness of
Speaker 1: e verifying? Well, look, I I know that part of
Speaker 1: our policy request. You know, there's a store A few
Speaker 1: weeks ago, you know, myself to Bord Patrol at CBP
Speaker 1: and CIS got together and we put a list of
Speaker 1: policy objectives and legislative jet because we sent them up
Speaker 1: to the Hill in their discussions on DOCUCN and these
Speaker 1: are things we need to fix the system with. And
Speaker 1: there's a story that I think came from the White Houses. No, No,
Speaker 1: this coming from career law enforce and officers. I've been
Speaker 1: doing this thirty four years. This was my list, this
Speaker 1: was the head of the CPPs list. We sent these
Speaker 1: up there and he verifies one of them. Look, you
Speaker 1: verify does work and and it should be required. So
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going to what they're going to
Speaker 1: be side up in hill again. I'm a law enforce
Speaker 1: and agency. I'm going to enforce Laws A and Act,
Speaker 1: and I'll stopping forcing Laws A repeal. But I'm hoping
Speaker 1: that everybody agrees im illegal immigration is a problem. We
Speaker 1: have three career law enforcing officers who've told you what
Speaker 1: the loopholes are, where the shortages are, what we can
Speaker 1: fix to end this. I hope they take it seriously
Speaker 1: and fix this once and for all. I was I
Speaker 1: was here in during the last ark in the amnesty
Speaker 1: and then they promised, you know, serious worksite enforcement then,
Speaker 1: but we never got the resources the authorities to do it.
Speaker 1: We're saying right now, we're talking about any discussion on DOCTA,
Speaker 1: Let's have a serious discussion how we fix this problem
Speaker 1: once and for all. And that what we sent up there,
Speaker 1: and he verified was on a list of things were
Speaker 1: sent up there we wanted to consider. We're speaking to
Speaker 1: Acting Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Holman. Director Director
Speaker 1: Holman tell me about the current state of illegal crossings,
Speaker 1: because in the New York Times just put out a
Speaker 1: peace saying that, well, here's a quote. Shelters along the
Speaker 1: southern border are filling up. Immigration lawyers in the regions
Speaker 1: say caseloads are spiking and across the southwest border officers
Speaker 1: are stopping more than a thousand people a day. Is
Speaker 1: there a surge right now? What's going on the numbers
Speaker 1: of family First of all, the overall numbers are down,
Speaker 1: but there is an increased recent increase in the number
Speaker 1: of family units and on the company children. And there's
Speaker 1: a reason for that. You know. Again, we have asked
Speaker 1: for changes in a lot of t v p R
Speaker 1: as a Trafficking Vitnam Protection actors. I think it's from
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, is followed the Homeland Security built
Speaker 1: two thousand two and if if if you're on a
Speaker 1: company child under the a j T and you are,
Speaker 1: you're if you're from Excre Canada. Once we determined you're
Speaker 1: not a victim of trafficking, we can remove them to
Speaker 1: these countries. However, the t v p r A makes
Speaker 1: it impossible us to remove children to like Central America, Honduras, Salvador, Guatemala,
Speaker 1: where most of these kids are coming from. So that's
Speaker 1: one of the things we sent to the healthy We
Speaker 1: show fix the t v p R A it's being abused.
Speaker 1: It had a good intention, but it's being abused in
Speaker 1: the loopholes in that system. These kids want they get
Speaker 1: released to a parent or sponsor. They're in to win.
Speaker 1: And if they do show up in court, which many
Speaker 1: of them don't, uh, they get a court or they're
Speaker 1: not going to leave, they're going to win. So we're
Speaker 1: asking for changes in that legislation to help. When once
Speaker 1: we get those changes, you're going to see those numbers
Speaker 1: drop significantly. As far as the family units, that's another
Speaker 1: court decision. That's another decision on the Ninth Circuit, and
Speaker 1: in the floor's decision settle my agreement, where they're telling
Speaker 1: us we can only hold these family units for a
Speaker 1: certain period of time, less than three weeks. Well, look,
Speaker 1: if you're an illegal Amian family, you're coming to Central
Speaker 1: America to come to the United States. If you know
Speaker 1: you can come, get arrest, turn yourself over, get arrest
Speaker 1: and putting a facility for two weeks and get fed,
Speaker 1: you know, three meals a day, get your vaccinations, get
Speaker 1: your physicals. Don't need to be released in the community.
Speaker 1: That's just a part of them doing business that you
Speaker 1: know they're gonna keep coming so we've asked for a
Speaker 1: change in that lit in that judicial decision, so we
Speaker 1: can hold these people, we remove people, we detain once
Speaker 1: you to release somebody, you know, we don't need they're
Speaker 1: going to win. So those two instances, the two populations
Speaker 1: you see a rise in the border are specifically in
Speaker 1: response to bad court decisions and bad policy. That we've
Speaker 1: asked Commerce to look at both of these things and
Speaker 1: change them as soon as they can. One more for
Speaker 1: your director. There's a lot of debate right now about
Speaker 1: the wall, the President said today and no uncertain terms
Speaker 1: of wall would have to be part of a package
Speaker 1: when it comes to addressing immigration from a legislative perspective.
Speaker 1: Just tell me this. You are currently overseeing thousands of
Speaker 1: agents from Immigrations and Customs enforcement. When you speak to
Speaker 1: the guys and men and women on the front lines
Speaker 1: here of enforcement, are they convinced the wall is a
Speaker 1: good idea? Are you convinced that the wall is a
Speaker 1: good idea? Because the media acts like a wall won't
Speaker 1: do anything, And I look around, I'm like, the history
Speaker 1: has a lot of walls that did a lot. Look
Speaker 1: you know, I I started my career in a Bordertrow.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of Bardastrow agents, and and of
Speaker 1: course I have my own hece agents. I can tell
Speaker 1: you fron own personal experience. I started my career in
Speaker 1: a Boardertrow. I I was in the San Diego sector
Speaker 1: back in eighty six, and we were catching thousands of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens per shift down there in the soccer fields.
Speaker 1: It's out of control. As soon as they put a
Speaker 1: wall up, a barrier up, the numbers plummeted. Every place
Speaker 1: they put that wall, whether San Diego, l Pass or
Speaker 1: some places in Huma. Every place they built the wall,
Speaker 1: it was extremely successful. And you know what, during the
Speaker 1: More Securities Act, it was a byparison, bipartisan support. Everybody's
Speaker 1: supported building this wall. So why would we not This
Speaker 1: has been successful in every place we put it. Why
Speaker 1: would we not want the wall to protect public safety,
Speaker 1: nascal security? What price are you gonna put on that?
Speaker 1: So for those people that want to attack the wall,
Speaker 1: it's worked. Every place that put up, it's proven. It's
Speaker 1: got to come with other technologies and resource and stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, and but the wall works. I support the wall.
Speaker 1: Like we had a forty five year decline in illegal crossings.
Speaker 1: This year. But everybody. So they don't need the wall. No,
Speaker 1: because there's still people are gonna come to this country
Speaker 1: forty five uh percent to clients. Still there's still thousands
Speaker 1: of people coming in. We need the wall. It's worked,
Speaker 1: let's do it, let's put let's what price you're gonna
Speaker 1: put on the security of this country. This president came
Speaker 1: in here, he wants the wall. I support that he's done.
Speaker 1: He's this president. I've worked for six different presidents. This
Speaker 1: president has done more for border security in public safety
Speaker 1: than any of the six presidents I've worked for. I've
Speaker 1: been forcing immigration lall for thirty four years, and this
Speaker 1: this president, President Trump, has done more for the men
Speaker 1: and women of Bord Patrol, for the men and women
Speaker 1: of Ice, and for the citizens of this country and
Speaker 1: border security than any president I've ever worked for. Let's
Speaker 1: find all this plan, let's get it fixed. Acting Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan, Director Holman. Great to
Speaker 1: have you, Thank you so much, and come back soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. H Team. We're going to roll into
Speaker 1: a break. We've got a lot more to talk about today,
Speaker 1: including the latest on immigration, Russia collusion investigation, regulation, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you some stories about regulation later on that
Speaker 1: are going to make your head spin. We're gonna break
Speaker 1: it down into some real world a real world example
Speaker 1: of just how crazy regulation is in this country and
Speaker 1: why it's so important that President Trump is in fact
Speaker 1: peeling them back and taking all of these ropes and
Speaker 1: constraints off of American businesses and American entrepreneurs. So we've
Speaker 1: got that a much more coming up eight f eight
Speaker 1: to five will be right back. Does this get in
Speaker 1: the administration's way of immigration reform. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I mean, we are very disappointed by the decision, but
Speaker 1: what we heard yesterday at the meeting was we're all
Speaker 1: committed to finding a deal. So a permanent solution is
Speaker 1: actually to the benefit of all the current DACA recipients,
Speaker 1: and that's what we'll pursue. Were those talks as productive
Speaker 1: as they appeared to all of us who were let
Speaker 1: into that room with the TV cameras rolling, Yes, I
Speaker 1: think so. I'm very optimistic. We left with a clear
Speaker 1: path forward. We agreed on the four pillars components of
Speaker 1: a deal. I'm very encouraged by what we did yesterday
Speaker 1: and look forward to continuing to meet with our colleagues
Speaker 1: on the Hill day to day and so we get
Speaker 1: this done. That was Secretary of Homeland Security kirshtin Nielsen
Speaker 1: earlier today on DOCCA and the negotiations around it. Look,
Speaker 1: DOCCA is something that sounds like it might be a
Speaker 1: good bargaining chip, and then you get into what the
Speaker 1: long term implications are or even really just the real
Speaker 1: implications of DOCCA, and you're gonna have some some big problems.
Speaker 1: But we'll we'll get back into that in a moment.
Speaker 1: I first wanted to spend some time setting up, uh,
Speaker 1: this insane, absolutely crazy order from a judge in California. Anytime,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say that on the show right there. So
Speaker 1: there's this judge in California who decided to get his
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance points up on the board. And in this case,
Speaker 1: it's about this is from the Northern District of California decision.
Speaker 1: This is a preliminary injunction, mind you, but the injunction
Speaker 1: is from this judge saying that across think about this,
Speaker 1: one federal judge says across the country, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: now has to has to implement deferred action for childhood
Speaker 1: arrivals doctor across the country. One judge the case is
Speaker 1: the regents of the University of California and Janet Apolitano. Ay,
Speaker 1: it's it's big sis, Nepolitano. I'm back. I un to
Speaker 1: be the Secretary of Homeland Security and now here I
Speaker 1: am running to California school system bringing a suit against
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Big stas. So she's part of this
Speaker 1: lawsuit against the home against her a former agency department
Speaker 1: Homeland Security. Isn't that? Isn't that what you call iron nick? Uh?
Speaker 1: You've got Kirsten Nielsen and we just played there named
Speaker 1: as the defendant here just because she runs DHS. And
Speaker 1: here's the basic the basic argument of the plaintiffs here
Speaker 1: that there are some people covered under DACA in California.
Speaker 1: There's some other states that also signed onto this two,
Speaker 1: but we'll just focus on California because why not just
Speaker 1: beat up on California. Uh, there's some there are some
Speaker 1: people who are covered under DACA who are students or faculty, etcetera,
Speaker 1: etcetera at the University of californ in your school system,
Speaker 1: which is which is vast and they're saying that this
Speaker 1: is it is unfair for Trump or in this case,
Speaker 1: it is it is illegal for Trump and the Department
Speaker 1: Homeland Security of the Executive Branch not to continue to
Speaker 1: give DOCCA protection to these individuals because it's necessary for
Speaker 1: the because they're doing good things. I mean, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to walk to the argument really makes no sense,
Speaker 1: but I'll try to give you what they're saying. What
Speaker 1: they're really saying is this plaintiffs group from the Department
Speaker 1: of or the regions of the University California and big
Speaker 1: sister a Politano Hello, hey uh and then DHS. What
Speaker 1: they're saying is DOCCA is good for people that work
Speaker 1: or go to the California school system. Therefore, for due
Speaker 1: process reasons, you can take away what's good for them,
Speaker 1: because because it hurts us, it puts us at a
Speaker 1: at a disadvantage because we need these DOCCA people so
Speaker 1: badly we're now working for or going I think it's
Speaker 1: primarily for some of the employees. But and this can
Speaker 1: get there's a very complicated version of this case and
Speaker 1: a very simple version of this case. I think I
Speaker 1: just made a clear deal with the simple version. First
Speaker 1: simple version is this it's illegal for illegals to be
Speaker 1: in the country. The Obama administration decided that under the
Speaker 1: notion of prosecutorial authority, a prosecutory discretion. Rather under prosecutorial discretion,
Speaker 1: they were gonna say, hey, you can stay here, and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, that also means you can work, you
Speaker 1: can get work permits while you're here. And it's really
Speaker 1: an abusive prosecutorial discretion because there is. And this is
Speaker 1: why the DAPPA program. And I know we're getting a
Speaker 1: little in the eats here, but it's important. Deferred action
Speaker 1: of parental right, or deferred action for parents of arrivals whatever. DAPPA,
Speaker 1: the parents of the DACA covered individuals, which is the
Speaker 1: so called dreamers. I don't like using that term because
Speaker 1: it's obviously it's it's obviously meant to influence the discussion
Speaker 1: just by using it. Right there, Dreamers, they're just dreaming
Speaker 1: about a better place, a better America, right, I mean, no,
Speaker 1: there're people that want to be in the country because
Speaker 1: America is the best country with the best economy, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Who and who are not legally allowed to be here.
Speaker 1: They're dreamers. Oh, but the the Obama aministration decided to
Speaker 1: do that, and the Trump administration came in and said,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, Uh, we don't want to continue
Speaker 1: to do that. We mean, the executive branch are not
Speaker 1: going to use our discretion in that way. Therefore, these
Speaker 1: doctor protections will not continue. And what the what this
Speaker 1: one and judge a Clinton appointee, No, no surprise there.
Speaker 1: What this one judge came out with today was sorry,
Speaker 1: you have to use your discretion in that way. Now,
Speaker 1: to put it mildly and simply, that's not the judge's call.
Speaker 1: The judge is not in a position to make that call.
Speaker 1: This is not up to this judge. The judge is
Speaker 1: going way beyond his authority. But as we saw with uh,
Speaker 1: that federal judge in Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit, this
Speaker 1: fifth Circuit than the Ninth Circuit, Oh, I'm sorry, no,
Speaker 1: this Ninth Circuit too. Um, as we saw with the
Speaker 1: judge out in Hawaii, though, who the Supreme Court had
Speaker 1: to slap down. You don't get to decide that you
Speaker 1: don't like Trump as a judge and you're just gonna
Speaker 1: overrule federal government policy because you don't like Trump. That's
Speaker 1: not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Speaker 1: And this decision from this judge in Northern California is
Speaker 1: just another instance of legislating from the bench hashtag resistance
Speaker 1: judges coming out and ignoring what the law says because
Speaker 1: they have a policy preference. In this case, this judge
Speaker 1: knows you're gonna be a hero in the state of
Speaker 1: California to a whole lot of people if you write
Speaker 1: the law or you make the law up as you
Speaker 1: go along to insist on DOCTA protections. It's very straightforward.
Speaker 1: Though the judge does not have the authority to do this.
Speaker 1: This would be the equivalent, okay of a judge. It
Speaker 1: really is the equivalent of a judge saying, um, okay,
Speaker 1: this federal prosecutor chose not to press charges on this case,
Speaker 1: and then another federal prosecutor would come along and the
Speaker 1: same the same jurisdiction and say no, no, I'm actually
Speaker 1: gonna bring charges. And then the judge is, sorry, you
Speaker 1: can't do that. Why not. It's it's the under the
Speaker 1: discretion of the prosecutorial wing of the Justice Department. It's
Speaker 1: not about whether. But the judge says, well, I don't
Speaker 1: like it. Well, we'll talk about more of this coming
Speaker 1: up this morning. And welcome to our first cabinet meeting
Speaker 1: of the new year was a year of tremendous achievement,
Speaker 1: monumental achievement. Actually, I don't think any administration has ever
Speaker 1: done has done what we've done and what we've accomplished
Speaker 1: in its first year, which isn't quite finished yet. You
Speaker 1: never know what's going to happen over the next few days.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. President Trump talking
Speaker 1: about the achievements of Seen, and I've certainly been trying
Speaker 1: to highlight them on this show because a lot of shows,
Speaker 1: a lot of media won't do that. They'll tell you
Speaker 1: about Trump is Trump, is this, He's that, He's seeing
Speaker 1: Ailie's crazy, He's even whatever. In fact, Seen on a
Speaker 1: policy basis was pretty darn good. Tax cuts are gonna
Speaker 1: be great, already having really positive impact on the economy,
Speaker 1: and I think we're in for a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that happened in UH that
Speaker 1: gets some attention but not nearly enough, has to do
Speaker 1: with regulations, has to do with getting rid of the
Speaker 1: red tape. And it has been tremendous for the for
Speaker 1: this country, for the economy. And this is directly in
Speaker 1: Trump Sands. This is one of the executive branch success
Speaker 1: is one of the victories. And this is a victory
Speaker 1: for conservatives, for limited government and for the whole country,
Speaker 1: even the people who hate it and hate Trump making
Speaker 1: things better for them whether they whether they like it
Speaker 1: or not. The President is helping them out with his
Speaker 1: approach to regular federal regulations. Because federal regulations have gotten
Speaker 1: completely out of control. And there's even a term term
Speaker 1: of art for this, now, regulatory fatigue or do you
Speaker 1: have regulatory fatigue, sir, Yes, I'm quite tired. Regulatory fatigue
Speaker 1: is when the regulations just pile up way, way too high. Now,
Speaker 1: this is kind of a conversation that could have a
Speaker 1: lot of jargon. I could give you the numbers, I mean,
Speaker 1: the numbers of Obama was just trying to build the
Speaker 1: Mount Olympus of regulations. I mean, just regulations up to
Speaker 1: the sky, up to the moon, as far as the
Speaker 1: eye can see in further right, more regulations, the better.
Speaker 1: A hyperactive federal regulatory body is what the Democrat party
Speaker 1: wants in this country. It's what Obama wanted, It's what
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton would have wanted. How if she were president
Speaker 1: United States? Why? Because it's at the heart of state
Speaker 1: is um. People that want the state to be in
Speaker 1: control love regulation because it fits right in with their
Speaker 1: overall idea of governance, which is that people should be
Speaker 1: told what to do by quote experts, and by that
Speaker 1: they really mean usually slothful bureaucrats, but experts in every
Speaker 1: aspect of their day to day life. There is nothing
Speaker 1: for for a true progressive Democrat. There is nothing that
Speaker 1: is beyond the purview of the state when it comes
Speaker 1: to dictating behavior, uh, dictating your approach to everything in
Speaker 1: your day to day life, decisions that you make, micro
Speaker 1: managed down to the most minute level. And it's no exaggeration.
Speaker 1: Let me give you an example here. What would be
Speaker 1: a an American pastime? What would be an American business
Speaker 1: that you would think everyone could agree that the federal
Speaker 1: government could take a relatively light touch in regulating, right,
Speaker 1: what's a one one thing about come to mind? Will
Speaker 1: be a lemonade stand? And sure enough, there are stories about,
Speaker 1: you know, a little eight year old girls running a
Speaker 1: lemonade stand, and the local you know, better business commerce
Speaker 1: whatever regulators come over and say, do you'll have a permit?
Speaker 1: Young lady? Now you know they kick her off the street,
Speaker 1: competing on fairly with local lemonade businesses, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: but but I've got a I've got a better one
Speaker 1: for you, or or I've got a specific one. And
Speaker 1: it actually comes from a courtesy of The New York
Speaker 1: Times from a few weeks ago. I don't think this
Speaker 1: got very much attention. One of the things I love
Speaker 1: to do here in the Freedom Hunt is bring stories
Speaker 1: to your attention that aren't just that. You know, the headline,
Speaker 1: the biggest headline on Fox News dot com, Drudge sometimes CNN,
Speaker 1: although CNN is just one long it's really now just
Speaker 1: turned into one long blog about the Russia collusion investigation.
Speaker 1: That's what CNN dot comms. But here's this piece of
Speaker 1: your Times apple picking. How complicated? How complex could apple
Speaker 1: picking really be? And how much could federal regulation really
Speaker 1: hamper the business of letting people pay some money to
Speaker 1: grab some apples on their own beautiful fall day. It's
Speaker 1: big out here. I know some parts of the country
Speaker 1: probably don't have much of this, but you know, out
Speaker 1: here on the East Coast, in the Northeast, you got
Speaker 1: a lot of this going on. So here's what The
Speaker 1: New York Times wrote on this quote for eight weeks.
Speaker 1: Every fall, Indian Ladder Farms, a fifth generation family operation
Speaker 1: near Albany, kicks into peak season. The farm cells homemade
Speaker 1: apple pies, fresh cider, and warm doughnuts. School Children arrived
Speaker 1: by the bus load to learn about growing apples, and
Speaker 1: as customers pick fruit from trees, workers fill bins with
Speaker 1: apples destined for the farm's shop and grocery stores. This fall,
Speaker 1: amid the rush of commerce, the apple harvest season accounts
Speaker 1: for about half of Indian ladders annual revenue. Federal investigators
Speaker 1: showed up. They wanted to check the farm's compliance with
Speaker 1: migrant labor rules and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
Speaker 1: sets pay and other requirements for workers. Suddenly, the small
Speaker 1: office staff turned its focus away from making money to
Speaker 1: play cating a government regulator. The investigators arrived on a
Speaker 1: Friday in late September and interviewed the farm's management and
Speaker 1: a group of laborers from Jamaica who have special work visas.
Speaker 1: The investigators hand delivered a notice and said they would
Speaker 1: be back the following week when they asked to have
Speaker 1: twenty two types of records available. The request included vehicle registrations,
Speaker 1: insurance documents and time sheets, reams of paper in all
Speaker 1: over the next several days, the ten Ike family, which
Speaker 1: owns the farm, along with the staff, devoted about forty
Speaker 1: hours to serving the investigators, who visited three times before
Speaker 1: closing the books. It is terribly disruptive, said Peter tan Ike,
Speaker 1: who runs the farm along with his daughter and son.
Speaker 1: And the dimension that doesn't get mentioned is the psychological hit.
Speaker 1: They are there to find something wrong with you, and
Speaker 1: then they are going to find you end quote. H.
Speaker 1: This is a This is a great example of how
Speaker 1: terrible some of the federal regulations in this country really are.
Speaker 1: I mean, this really brings it home. I think you
Speaker 1: got a business in its peaks. It's a very seasonal business,
Speaker 1: apple picking, not a lot of apple picking. I'm a native,
Speaker 1: you know, New Yorker, and I've spent a lot of time.
Speaker 1: I have family up in the Hudson Valley, have a
Speaker 1: house of the Hudson Valley. Grandparents been there, uh summers
Speaker 1: up in the Hudson Valley, and I'm pretty sure there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of apple picking going on in January.
Speaker 1: But if it's the peak season, they said, that counts
Speaker 1: for half of this farm's revenue. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: you on this show about farmers and the plight of farmers.
Speaker 1: Trump spoke to farmers yesterday in or maybe the day
Speaker 1: before in Nashville and federal regulations, reams of paper. We
Speaker 1: had Selina Zito come on. She's a author and a
Speaker 1: correspondent journalist, and she was saying that farmers have to
Speaker 1: fill out stacks and stacks and stacks of paperwork. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know, farming is a really tough business, really hard
Speaker 1: to do. I know that, right. You deal with a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that's beyond your control. Seasonality. Whether all
Speaker 1: this I can't. I would think though, that one of
Speaker 1: the benefits is that it's a pretty self sustaining thing
Speaker 1: and you're at least somewhat away from the reach of
Speaker 1: an overweening and semi dick tutorial Uncle Sam. But oh,
Speaker 1: farmers got a ton of paperwork. I've been willing to
Speaker 1: bet now every small businessman and woman listening to this
Speaker 1: show right now, it's probably like, oh, Buck, let me
Speaker 1: tell you about dealing with OSHA, dealing with the f
Speaker 1: d A, dealing with I mean, all these different organizations
Speaker 1: that come in and want never mind, I mean, you
Speaker 1: get a visit from the I R S. That's truly
Speaker 1: the nightmare scenario. But I'm sure you've all got stories
Speaker 1: about it, and it needs to stop. It needs to stop.
Speaker 1: It is completely and utterly out of control. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Mercadis Center, which is a center right think tank
Speaker 1: at George Mason University, says that the Federal Regulatory Code
Speaker 1: right now has and this is just for rules on
Speaker 1: apple orchards, okay, has twelve thousand rules and regulations and
Speaker 1: effect for apple picking. My friends, the trees, the apples,
Speaker 1: you pick them, you eat them, or you sell them.
Speaker 1: I mean, how it really? I mean, we're pretty much
Speaker 1: in lemonade stand territory here right in terms of the
Speaker 1: complexity of the commercial transaction, and no offense to lemonade stand.
Speaker 1: But you see what I'm saying. This is not Dodd
Speaker 1: Frank High Finance Global too. This is Okay, I've got
Speaker 1: an apple farm. I'd like people to come. I'd like
Speaker 1: them to be able. Reminds me of Ron Swanson, you
Speaker 1: know that, the wonderful character from the show Parks and
Speaker 1: Wreck where he gives his version of commerce, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, I've got a few apples, would you like
Speaker 1: to trade or buy some they're done commerce. That's really
Speaker 1: what this should be. It doesn't have to be more
Speaker 1: complicated than that. And yet the federal government has twelve thousand.
Speaker 1: We think about that. If you and I sat down,
Speaker 1: if I got like a group of team Buck experts,
Speaker 1: we could probably come up with like a few hundred
Speaker 1: regulations if we were trying to. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it would be a good thing, but twelve thousand. How
Speaker 1: do you have twelve thousand regulations about picking apples? Well,
Speaker 1: the federal code currently for orchards specifically spends ten thousand,
Speaker 1: four hundred words to regulate the spraying of pesticides. And
Speaker 1: I can tell you that somebody who, as part of
Speaker 1: my living, gets paid to write things and pays attention
Speaker 1: to word count. That's a lot of words. That's a
Speaker 1: lot of writing about pesticides, just for orchards. The business
Speaker 1: owner in this case, the the owner of the orchard, uh,
Speaker 1: must be proficient. According to the Times, here in thirty
Speaker 1: three precise definitions, including a forty five word description of
Speaker 1: the term hazard. Uh. There, this is just insanity. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely crazy. I mean I look into the details
Speaker 1: here and I think how could and even the Times
Speaker 1: is like, look, you know there are there is a
Speaker 1: limit even to our status meddling. Right, even the times
Speaker 1: you're saying, maybe having twelve thousand regulations for an apple
Speaker 1: orchard is a bad idea. And this is why when
Speaker 1: Trump is trying to push for a regulatory rollback and
Speaker 1: has been, it is so important for all of us.
Speaker 1: It's so important for business. And you know, this is
Speaker 1: what you're seeing here. I mean President Trump at the
Speaker 1: beginning of his term signed an executive order that for
Speaker 1: every new federal regulation too had to be rescinded um.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the things that does not
Speaker 1: get nearly enough attention, does not get nearly enough I think,
Speaker 1: uh does thing nearly enough? Credit twelve thousand, folks, that's
Speaker 1: how many regulations for an apple org And it's just insane.
Speaker 1: Think about what that does. And that's now we're start
Speaker 1: thinking about what's it like for more complicated businesses. I
Speaker 1: should know it. It's really anti competitive as well. Big
Speaker 1: business loves big government, big business love staate is um,
Speaker 1: especially when you're talking about regulatory costs, regulatory burden, all that.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why there's been so much consolidation of
Speaker 1: the megabanks and these mega financial institutions because for them, yeah,
Speaker 1: they they can handle the Dodd Frank regulatory burden. Might
Speaker 1: mean more costs for consumers, might mean it affects the
Speaker 1: bottom line of the corporate entity. But if you're trying
Speaker 1: to get a small start, you're trying to run a
Speaker 1: small a boutique investment bank for example, or even a
Speaker 1: community local bank, hurts you a whole lot more than
Speaker 1: it does Goldman Sacks, doesn't it right? And you can
Speaker 1: apply that throughout the entire commercial ecosystem to businesses across
Speaker 1: the board. This is why the White How approach to regulation.
Speaker 1: It just means that, you know what, the local apple
Speaker 1: orchard owner maybe has a shot to stay in business.
Speaker 1: Means the local auto body shop owner, the uh somebody
Speaker 1: runs a grocery store, somebody runs uh whatever, your small business.
Speaker 1: Maybe you got a shot under this administration, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration was just telling you to just deal with it. Sorry.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got we've got an agenda here, We've
Speaker 1: got people to please, we've got a media that we
Speaker 1: need to run stories about how we're cracking down on
Speaker 1: the lack of recycling, an X, Y or Z industry. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just it was insanity, and it's
Speaker 1: all because of this president in this White House. So
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call it out when I don't like what
Speaker 1: they're doing. You know, I disagree with this administration on
Speaker 1: the approach to the legalization there approach when it comes
Speaker 1: to legalization of marijuana. They're more restrictive and more about
Speaker 1: enforcement at least that's what they're saying. But on regulation,
Speaker 1: you know, it should commerce should be a pretty straightforward
Speaker 1: thing whenever we can have it that way, and you know,
Speaker 1: an apple and apple orchard should be, hey, I would
Speaker 1: like to buy some apples, here's some money for it,
Speaker 1: and yeah, don't don't spray anything on it that's gonna
Speaker 1: hurt anybody. And you know we can we can make
Speaker 1: this pretty straightforward, just like with the tax code. Same
Speaker 1: thing should be true of federal regulations for businesses. Simple, straightforward,
Speaker 1: universally applied and applicable. That's it. That's it. So regulations
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a sexy topic, But to those of
Speaker 1: you who deal with it, I know you're like, hey,
Speaker 1: this matters, alright, Alright, I know I gotta roll into
Speaker 1: a break here, I got fired up about my apple
Speaker 1: orchard eight four or four n eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four or four nine buck. Let me just say, if
Speaker 1: you've got a story about your business dealing with crazy regulations,
Speaker 1: would love to hear it. Crazier the better. Let's beat
Speaker 1: up on the federal government. Let's beat up on the
Speaker 1: Leviathan bureaucracy that is out there, the many tentacled octopus
Speaker 1: that will not leave you a own courtesy of Washington
Speaker 1: d C. We'll be right back a little bit differently,
Speaker 1: because I think there's no question in my mind that
Speaker 1: I'm not to have banks now. The regulations was like
Speaker 1: a friction cause in society, and it got worse and
Speaker 1: worse and worse. So in other industries. If I speak
Speaker 1: to you know, if some of my friends in media, mining, telecom,
Speaker 1: they're clearly seeing to benefit, we haven't really seen it.
Speaker 1: And financial services because the new people just put in place.
Speaker 1: But but the American public should think of this is
Speaker 1: a vast bureaucracy which is like sand in the engine.
Speaker 1: And to reduce some of that, not roll back good regulations,
Speaker 1: not go back to the good old times. Not. Don't
Speaker 1: you know we need to protect consumers but you know,
Speaker 1: bureaucracy and bureaucracy, and the American public knows that when
Speaker 1: they go to the d M V veterans, No, when
Speaker 1: they go to the v A. I mean, and that's
Speaker 1: what's been happening more and more the United States. That's
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond speaking to Maria bar a Roma there on
Speaker 1: Fox and he's the CEO of JP Morgan and it's
Speaker 1: a Democrat. It's super rich guy obviously, uh. And he's
Speaker 1: talking about it. And look, I think he's right, you know,
Speaker 1: I think he's puts it pretty well. We know what
Speaker 1: bureaucracy is like. Whenever we deal with it, we hate it.
Speaker 1: So why do we want bureaucracies more involved in our
Speaker 1: lives via regulation? Why would we want an apple orchard
Speaker 1: to get a visit in its busiest season that takes
Speaker 1: forty hours of manpower offline for them to make, you know,
Speaker 1: to make a profit, make enough money for people to
Speaker 1: pay their bills, pay their mortgage, put food on the table.
Speaker 1: We don't we we don't want that to happen. We
Speaker 1: don't want the federal government doing all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: And it really needs a look, I mean, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration just went nuts with telling the American people what
Speaker 1: to do all with everything all over the place and
Speaker 1: pushing that back is is phenomenal. Stephen in Mississippi has
Speaker 1: got a ridiculous regulation for me. What's up, Stephen? Hello?
Speaker 1: How are you? I'm good? Okay. Now, what we had
Speaker 1: to do when they switched over to energy efficient bulbs
Speaker 1: the for for reescent bloods that we used, we had
Speaker 1: to buy the same box they came in to store
Speaker 1: them to send them back to the government rather than
Speaker 1: just putting them in h bub crusher and uh crushing
Speaker 1: them and sending them back to the landfill. So you,
Speaker 1: because of a regulation, you had to recycle your light
Speaker 1: bulbs and send them back to the government. Now we
Speaker 1: had to recycle them in the exact same box they
Speaker 1: came in, in the same box. Why, I don't even
Speaker 1: know why. They don't even know how they think that
Speaker 1: makes sense? That's what they did. And we had to
Speaker 1: chain off the area they were in. But we had
Speaker 1: to put them in the same exact box they came in.
Speaker 1: So if somebody lost the box, we had to buy
Speaker 1: the box from ge and then ship it down here
Speaker 1: to us. Put the balls in? What business? What business?
Speaker 1: Steve do you mind telling us what kind of business? Yeah? Yeah, man, Steven,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Shield Tie, thank you for calling
Speaker 1: in with the regular Yeah, it's I mean, I the
Speaker 1: stories people tell me about this stuff, it's insane. Well,
Speaker 1: the way everybody I know who works in finances, like
Speaker 1: dot Frank is crazy. Dot Frank does all kinds of
Speaker 1: really bad things, but people don't spend as much time
Speaker 1: thinking about that. All right, we got a lot more
Speaker 1: stay with me. All We got Brett in Virginia who's
Speaker 1: got a dumb federal regulation for me. Brett, lay it
Speaker 1: on me. Hey, Buck, are you tonight? I'm good man,
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in. Well, I have a pressure
Speaker 1: washing business and I fight both E p A and
Speaker 1: um OSHA. So just to give you an example of
Speaker 1: how crazy the regulations are. Um if we claim a
Speaker 1: building and we use kind of coals, but you have
Speaker 1: to capture that and put it in a sanitary sewer.
Speaker 1: And I understand that because it's chemicals and we don't
Speaker 1: want those ruining our water system. Even though I'm conservative,
Speaker 1: I don't like to do things like that. Yeah, everybody
Speaker 1: actually wants clean water. There's this there's this left wing
Speaker 1: myth out there. That people will want to poison, especially
Speaker 1: the communities they live in, because you know, the e
Speaker 1: p A has to save the day or something. It's
Speaker 1: crazy exactly. And and and these are people that I
Speaker 1: mean e p A started out at nothing, and that
Speaker 1: it's a gigantic organization. But here, here's the here's the
Speaker 1: funny part of this thing. So I cleaned the building
Speaker 1: with hot water only because it's easier to do it
Speaker 1: that way than it is the chemicals. I still have
Speaker 1: to capture that water and the dirt and all that
Speaker 1: comes off of those buildings. I have to take that water.
Speaker 1: I have to put it in some kind of vessel,
Speaker 1: and then I have to pump it into grass, dirt
Speaker 1: or gravel so they can then be filtered. And I
Speaker 1: said to the person who was with the state, the
Speaker 1: same as e p A, what happens when it rains?
Speaker 1: They have no answer, right, So you're telling me that
Speaker 1: you're literally using water to clean as you're as part
Speaker 1: of your business. You're you're using water on the outside
Speaker 1: of a building which is hit with water when it rains,
Speaker 1: and you have to treat the water runoff from cleaning
Speaker 1: the building like you're using dangerous or abrasive chemicals or
Speaker 1: something pretty much pretty close to it. Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It has to be filtered through the ground, not through it.
Speaker 1: So it's not a separate thing. But it has to
Speaker 1: be filtered through the ground because why because it's dirty.
Speaker 1: So you have special regulations for how you dispose of
Speaker 1: dirty water. It's it's dirty. I mean, does dirty water
Speaker 1: not go down the storm drains anyway? Yeah, I would think. So,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to Wow, that isn't a regulation. Is so
Speaker 1: dumb that I'm having a hard time understand. I didn't
Speaker 1: get Brett. Well, on top of that, I've drat the
Speaker 1: ocean regulations and I've got my STS manuals. I have
Speaker 1: to keep one in the shop and one and and
Speaker 1: one in each truck. Here's the funny thing. If you
Speaker 1: buy it in in the store and I bring it
Speaker 1: into my office. So let's say you go out and
Speaker 1: you buy some wind X and put it under your
Speaker 1: cabinet in the house. Well, that's fine and wonderful. But
Speaker 1: if I buy that same windex and put it in
Speaker 1: my office for my employees to use, I have to
Speaker 1: have an SCS sheet on that. And for those who
Speaker 1: don't know what STS is. It's material safety data sheets
Speaker 1: and it explains what it is, what it's made of,
Speaker 1: and what you do in case this happens or that happens,
Speaker 1: open your kitchen cabinet. Yeah, there you go, Brett, great examples, man.
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling from Virginia. I appreciate it. And
Speaker 1: keep doing what you do. Um. Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's amazing to me when you uh, when we uh
Speaker 1: look at the on the on the apple orchard, the
Speaker 1: whole farmer situation I was telling you about. I didn't
Speaker 1: even get into some of those details, just about the
Speaker 1: the enormous amount of paperwork about everything that happens on
Speaker 1: the farm all the time. They have to and then
Speaker 1: they go into some crazy examples. You know, anything that
Speaker 1: happens they have to document it paperwork, and probably in
Speaker 1: duplicate or triplicate and all this stuff. It's a farm,
Speaker 1: you know. Yeah, if somebody gets hit with heavy machinery
Speaker 1: and they're injured, okay, you documented. Right, there's this. This
Speaker 1: is the thun funny thing of regulation. Sensible regulation is
Speaker 1: not something that a lot of people have a have
Speaker 1: a tough time with. Right, It's very easy to understand this.
Speaker 1: It's just a question, and when the regulations become well,
Speaker 1: wouldn't this be nice, or oh we have this agenda,
Speaker 1: Oh we would like it if that were that were happening.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just madness. It's just madness. Pollution is
Speaker 1: a great example, by the way, of how this gets
Speaker 1: so out of control. There's always this notion that the
Speaker 1: thinks that we want to get rid of all regulations
Speaker 1: and everything, because if if conservatives have had their way,
Speaker 1: we'd be living in some kind of uh you know,
Speaker 1: iron randy and anarchy where only the strong survive and
Speaker 1: people will be polluting everything. And now nobody actually wants
Speaker 1: to poison people. Really, that's I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it never happens. I'm just saying it's it's not an
Speaker 1: active goal of of industry or jab or job creators
Speaker 1: or they don't need to act like everybody's trying to
Speaker 1: do terrible things all the time. But they do. They
Speaker 1: certainly do. Uh. So there's that. So we got some
Speaker 1: of the regulation stuff in there. I know, you you know,
Speaker 1: how many other people are gonna spend time on their
Speaker 1: radio show or on on their TV show or whatever
Speaker 1: about regulatory burden, regulatory fatigue, as it is called hello
Speaker 1: and fatigued from the regulations. That's how we roll here though,
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. We do educational stuff here as well,
Speaker 1: you know, not just all the country. That country is
Speaker 1: being destroy you know, okay, yeah, anyone can do that, right.
Speaker 1: The country is going down the tubes, you know. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's fun at all. But there's other things
Speaker 1: to talk about as well. I think I'm gonna hold
Speaker 1: off on my speaking of fearmongering. No, but really, I
Speaker 1: think I'm gonna hold off on the discussion about what
Speaker 1: happens if China stops buying treasuries and maybe starts to
Speaker 1: unwind some of its treasury positions for a later time.
Speaker 1: He might even have an expert guest come on and
Speaker 1: get into that one, because that's that's how things start
Speaker 1: to be a little scary. The the debt, which I
Speaker 1: know nobody really wants to talk about. The debt is
Speaker 1: still a big problem, and it's getting worse all the time.
Speaker 1: But right now, people, I don't want to get into it.
Speaker 1: So all right, I hear you and all that. I
Speaker 1: hear that switching gears though for a second from that
Speaker 1: whole I'm gonna need you to do a heartbreak with me. Here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get away from that for a second talk.
Speaker 1: We're gonna take a tough breath. It will We'll stretch
Speaker 1: it out. I told you before I got my neck
Speaker 1: is killing me. So maybe you can take a moment
Speaker 1: wherever you're listening and just just do do yourself. Favorite
Speaker 1: do a little stretching. It's something I don't do nearly
Speaker 1: enough of. And I'm hurting myself because I get all
Speaker 1: tightly wound from reading and writing and researching all the time.
Speaker 1: It's not not good for your posture. Uh. The greatest
Speaker 1: newest nickname out there courtesy of Trump is Sneaky Diane Finstein.
Speaker 1: This is when he tweeted out earlier today, the single
Speaker 1: greatest witch hunt in American history continues. There was no collusion. Everybody,
Speaker 1: including the Dems, knows there was no collusion. And yet
Speaker 1: on it goes Russia and the world is laughing at
Speaker 1: the stupidity they're witnessing. Republicans should finally take control. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then he says, wait, where's the sneaky what does
Speaker 1: he call her? Sneaky fin Stein? I forget where he
Speaker 1: it happened. President Trump's Oh Yeah. The fact that sneaky
Speaker 1: Diane fin Stein, who this is what I was looking for.
Speaker 1: The fact that sneaky Diane fine Stein, who was on
Speaker 1: numerous occasion state inclusion has not been found, would release
Speaker 1: testimony in such an underhand that and possibly illegal way,
Speaker 1: totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have primary Uh so, yeah,
Speaker 1: he calls her sneaky, sneaky Diane Feinstein. Meanwhile, over at
Speaker 1: the MS MSNBC, here's what Laurence O'Donnell had to say
Speaker 1: about the fine Stein testimony transcript. I don't know if
Speaker 1: we call it a leak, but whatever it was, here's
Speaker 1: what here's here's that the left is treating this. So
Speaker 1: what Diane Spinstein did today was the single most important
Speaker 1: act by the United States senator since Donald Trump took
Speaker 1: the oath of office. Nothing less than that, sir, stop
Speaker 1: the hammering, Stop the hammering. Laurence O'Donnell once said, Uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know how he could say that's the most
Speaker 1: important thing ever, because one, there's a lot of redactions
Speaker 1: in it, so there's a lot that we're still not
Speaker 1: allowed to know. And I would like to know why
Speaker 1: fusion GPS is work isn't classified because Fusion GPS is
Speaker 1: a private sector entity working at the behest of a
Speaker 1: political campaign. So why would there be stuff that we're
Speaker 1: that is not for public view? From that, why will
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS only testify behind closed doors? Another question that
Speaker 1: I think we all deserve some answers to. And and
Speaker 1: how Laurence O'Donnell comes up with the notion that this
Speaker 1: is the most important thing that any Senator has done
Speaker 1: under Trump's presidency. I mean, maybe the Senate is not
Speaker 1: doing a lot of really important stuff, fine, but it
Speaker 1: seems to me that Feinstein clearly has an agenda at
Speaker 1: work here. Some are saying what she did is not
Speaker 1: even legal. I don't know. I didn't I didn't spend
Speaker 1: time on Capitol Hill with regard to these kinds of testimony,
Speaker 1: so I can't tell you if it's legal or not.
Speaker 1: But it seems to me like it quite clearly was
Speaker 1: intended to have some political effect or impacts. So there
Speaker 1: you have it. Uh, Sneaky Diane Feinstein the newest of
Speaker 1: the Trump nicknames, Sneaky fin Stein. Trump is great with
Speaker 1: the nicknames. I mean, you know, to say what you
Speaker 1: will about the guy. He gives nicknames that stick sneaky Diane. Alright,
Speaker 1: eight four or four eight to five. We'll get into
Speaker 1: some of the um some me too moment stuff, and
Speaker 1: I think it's got a little lot of control. Get
Speaker 1: into that and some other things coming up here, So
Speaker 1: stay right there. I'll be back. I feel like I
Speaker 1: could do a whole show just on Crazy CNN. Chiron's
Speaker 1: Kirn's are the little words, you know, little banners the
Speaker 1: bottom of the of the TV screen. And there was
Speaker 1: one I sec togo about Yale psychiatrists warning about warning
Speaker 1: Congress about Trump's mental health. Okay, well, what exactly are
Speaker 1: they warning about here? This is not somebody who has
Speaker 1: not somebody who's actually been able to diagnos house and
Speaker 1: spend time with the president. So it's it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: They're crazy. They think Trump's crazy, and the truth is
Speaker 1: they are crazy. Oh my gosh. They will not let
Speaker 1: it go. They won't stop if they don't get them
Speaker 1: on Russian collusion. They're they're going to try to convince
Speaker 1: people that that the president has that the president is deranged. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the president is doing all kinds of great stuff for
Speaker 1: the country, including outside of the country too. Here's what
Speaker 1: he had to say about earlier today about the Korea situation,
Speaker 1: that the North and South Korean standoff, nuclear standoff between
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un and the rest of the world. Here's
Speaker 1: what Trump had to say. I just spoke to President Moon.
Speaker 1: He's very thankful for what we've done that having talks
Speaker 1: with North Korea. Will see how that happens. Uh. He
Speaker 1: felt that the original that the initial talk was extremely
Speaker 1: good and a lot of good comment. Rex was on
Speaker 1: the phone, and Nikki has been totally briefed. But we
Speaker 1: had a very very good conversation and we'll see where
Speaker 1: it goes. He's very thankful for what we've done. It
Speaker 1: was so reported today, uh that we were the ones.
Speaker 1: Without our attitude that would have never happened. Who knows
Speaker 1: where it leads, hopefully to lead to success for the world,
Speaker 1: not just for our country, but for the world. So
Speaker 1: we've been told by the press for a while that
Speaker 1: Trump's approach to North Korea, to Kim Jong On specifically,
Speaker 1: is antagonistic, could lead to nuclear war. That was the
Speaker 1: whole That was the whole, uh. Summary version of what
Speaker 1: they were saying about Trump's tweets where we call them
Speaker 1: rocket man and everything and yeah, here we are. You have.
Speaker 1: You don't have to just take my word for it,
Speaker 1: you have. The president of South Korea, President Moon jay In,
Speaker 1: said that quote. Trump deserves big credit for kicking off
Speaker 1: the first talks between Pyongyang and Soul in more than
Speaker 1: two years. North Korea has agreed to send a delegation
Speaker 1: to the Winter Olympics next month. Now, I'm I'm very
Speaker 1: sober minded about this. I'm very forthright with you all.
Speaker 1: I know that this could just be a North Korean
Speaker 1: head fake or a North Korean ploy, but it is
Speaker 1: also the first time in two years that there has
Speaker 1: been any real talking between North and South Korea, and
Speaker 1: it happens to be occurring right after a series of
Speaker 1: decisions by the Trump administration to implement more powerful sanctions
Speaker 1: against North Korea, and also Trump saying, look, you know,
Speaker 1: if you want to play rough you know a little
Speaker 1: man in North Korea, guess what a rocket man? You know?
Speaker 1: I can play rougher when you're talking about a regime
Speaker 1: like North Korea where the cult of personality is absolute
Speaker 1: and absolutist, When you're looking at a truly totalitarian society
Speaker 1: like that where the leader is worshiped in an almost
Speaker 1: godlike status that somebody would challenge him so directly in
Speaker 1: this way, we've been told will only result in heightened
Speaker 1: chance of of of an actual nuclear exchange, nuclear war
Speaker 1: with North Korea, which they may get off a couple
Speaker 1: of missiles, but there won't be any North Korea left afterwards,
Speaker 1: as we all know. So that's not a war they
Speaker 1: would win. It's not a where anybody wants either, but
Speaker 1: it's war we would finish. And we've been told that
Speaker 1: you can't you can't hit back at the bully publicly
Speaker 1: this way. It's it's uh crazy, what there's that word again?
Speaker 1: You know, it's irresponsible Trump is doing. Meanwhile, you got
Speaker 1: the president of South Korea, who I think knows a
Speaker 1: whole lot more about North Korea South Korean relations in
Speaker 1: the military situation. Then all these different pundits and journalists
Speaker 1: and such running around sharing their opinions on this. Who's
Speaker 1: saying that President Trump deserves a lot of credit here
Speaker 1: for taking action, for doing something, for forcing North Korea's hand,
Speaker 1: And is this something that's getting into coverage New New
Speaker 1: of course not. There's also been this uprising in Iran,
Speaker 1: which if you go back and look at the if
Speaker 1: you look at what the conventional wisdom of the foreign
Speaker 1: policy echo chamber has been on these two problems. Remember
Speaker 1: the two states left from what Bush described as the
Speaker 1: access of evil, right it was Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
Speaker 1: And now the rock has gone, not no longer on
Speaker 1: the access of evil now that it's gone as a place,
Speaker 1: but Iran and North Korea is still remained very serious
Speaker 1: problems with the United States. And yet the foreign policy
Speaker 1: consensus from the people who think they know about these
Speaker 1: things in the media at least, and from the former
Speaker 1: Obama administration officials who just make they really make a
Speaker 1: mockery of themselves on a regular basis. These uh foreign
Speaker 1: policy bros that worked for Obama that are running around
Speaker 1: you can see some of them on Twitter and stuff
Speaker 1: and the But the wisdom has been, oh, well, because
Speaker 1: Trump was uh being well, because he's been critical of
Speaker 1: the Iran nuclear deal. The people of Iran have rallied
Speaker 1: behind the regime. That was like a month ago, people
Speaker 1: that were writing that in New York Times and there
Speaker 1: that was the storyline. Oh they're there. Trump's refusal to
Speaker 1: play by Obama's rules when it comes to Iran is
Speaker 1: just making everything worse. Meanwhile, we've seen an uprising against
Speaker 1: the regime, and not just against any one particular small
Speaker 1: policy of the regime has has been doing in Iran,
Speaker 1: but against the the entirety of it, the whole blocracy,
Speaker 1: the whole thing, the Mullah's run of the show uh
Speaker 1: Iranian Islamist Revolution. They're like, this is all crap. We're
Speaker 1: sick of it. It's bad, we don't want this anymore. Oh,
Speaker 1: I guess all the foreign policy consensus about Trump on
Speaker 1: this was was not right. Huh. The same things going
Speaker 1: on here with North Korea. Oh Trump, you can't do that.
Speaker 1: You can't say his mean things about Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: Uh So we're just supposed to sit around and and
Speaker 1: let By the way, it's a big propaganda tool for
Speaker 1: the North Koreans that Kim Jong un gets his way,
Speaker 1: gets away literally with murder, but Kim jongan gets his
Speaker 1: way with the international community, doesn't suffer consequences, slaps out
Speaker 1: at countries that are much bigger and more powerful than him,
Speaker 1: including the United States, and you know there's there's no
Speaker 1: real pushback. Well, Trump is calling him out basic, calling
Speaker 1: him a punk and saying, look, the door to negotiation
Speaker 1: and diplomacy is open. But if you want to be
Speaker 1: a punk, we we can. We can treat you like one.
Speaker 1: And people say, oh, foreign policy, it was so bad. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: like I said, the President to South Korea is looking
Speaker 1: at saying, actually, Trump knows knows something that all the
Speaker 1: Obama experts from that eight years of foreign policy disaster.
Speaker 1: Trump seems to know something they don't know. Like like
Speaker 1: others of them pointing out they can call Trump crazy
Speaker 1: till they're blow in the face. But from everything we
Speaker 1: see so far, if Trump is crazy, my friends, he
Speaker 1: is crazy like a fox. We'll be right back. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about the latest with the me too movement, Jolly,
Speaker 1: Let's discuss some stories that fall into this category of
Speaker 1: UH the movement against sexual harassment and uh the all
Speaker 1: all the different iterations of this. Now, there are a
Speaker 1: few things coming together, different perspectives on this that I
Speaker 1: would like to spend some time working through with you.
Speaker 1: First of all, there there's well, in a way, this
Speaker 1: touches on the meat the meat too movement, which is
Speaker 1: as you know, is about women who are sharing their
Speaker 1: stories of harassment or assault or but it it has
Speaker 1: been also used in politicized ways already, as any political
Speaker 1: movement would be. It has been used by some to grandstand.
Speaker 1: It has been appropriated for the self interest of different
Speaker 1: individuals at different times. So we're going to look at
Speaker 1: this from different perspectives. You've got Mark Wahlberg, whom I
Speaker 1: have to say has has grown on me as as
Speaker 1: an actor. I like him more now than I used to.
Speaker 1: I like I like a fair amount of his movies. Um,
Speaker 1: in the earlier day, I was not a Marky Mark
Speaker 1: and the Funky Bunch fan. It's some of you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're old enough to remember. You know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't remember the songs. But Mark Wahlberg
Speaker 1: has has matured as as an actor as a performer,
Speaker 1: and I think he's done a He's done a good job.
Speaker 1: But good Way, Good Vibrations was the Marky Mark and
Speaker 1: the Funky Bunch. Really, that's a pretty good song. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'll take that back anyway, I have a Marky Mark.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Mark part. I did not mean to do that.
Speaker 1: Mark Wahlberg, who is a very big box office draw,
Speaker 1: was part of the reshoots for the All the Money
Speaker 1: in the World movie, not All the Money in the
Speaker 1: world had to be reshot because of a me Too
Speaker 1: movement moments in which it came out that Kevin space
Speaker 1: He had tried to engage in a sexual encounter with
Speaker 1: an actor male actor who at the time was was
Speaker 1: underage under the age of consent in the state of
Speaker 1: New York, and that got him in a whole lot
Speaker 1: of trouble. And he has he's one of these people
Speaker 1: now who's who's been outed and his career outed as
Speaker 1: a predator and his career is obviously I don't know
Speaker 1: if you say it's totally done, but never gonna be
Speaker 1: the same guys off the show House of Cards, which
Speaker 1: I have to say the first season was entertaining a
Speaker 1: very overrated show. I couldn't even make it through the
Speaker 1: third season. But anyway, but he's now he's been one
Speaker 1: of these people who has gotten a whole lot of
Speaker 1: trouble because of what he it is allegedly, remember this
Speaker 1: has not been proven to court a lot, but allegedly
Speaker 1: did a long time ago, and we're trying to do
Speaker 1: a long time ago. Oh and Mark Wahlberg had to
Speaker 1: be part of the reshoot Becausey had to take Kevin
Speaker 1: Spacey out of the movie. Well, the big issue here
Speaker 1: is that it's come out and it's been made a
Speaker 1: big issue by the media that Mark Wahlberg got paid
Speaker 1: one point five million dollars for the reshoot of the movie.
Speaker 1: That was necessary. The reshoot was necessary because they had
Speaker 1: they scrubbed Kevin Spacey from the movie, literally removed him
Speaker 1: in post production and and used another actor's face like
Speaker 1: he they it's pretty amazing technologically they removed him from
Speaker 1: the movie. He got paid one one five million dollars.
Speaker 1: Michelle Williams uh got paid a thousand dollars, it has
Speaker 1: been reported, which you know, that's a big that is
Speaker 1: a big pay differential. But a few things about this,
Speaker 1: and it's and people are saying that, see this is
Speaker 1: yet again the you know, equal work, equal pay thing,
Speaker 1: fair pay me to all all this different stuff, all
Speaker 1: of this gender inequality political movement gets tied into this
Speaker 1: right away. And I would just say, look, I haven't
Speaker 1: looked too deeply into the details here. I don't have
Speaker 1: access to the contracts they sign. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: from what I understand, well, a couple of things. One
Speaker 1: is that I know that Mark Wahlberg uh was or
Speaker 1: is a much bigger actor in terms of being a
Speaker 1: box office draw than Michelle Williams is. That's just a fact.
Speaker 1: I think Wallberg's movies have grossed in the last couple
Speaker 1: of years close to a billion dollars. Michelle williams movies
Speaker 1: have not gross close to a lillion dollars. And movie
Speaker 1: making is a business, not a business that is necessarily
Speaker 1: conducted very well. A lot of times in terms of
Speaker 1: the bottom line. A lot of mistakes are made, a
Speaker 1: lot of bad movies get made. But Mark Wahlberg is
Speaker 1: a is a box office draw. It's about the I
Speaker 1: don't know much of the lingo here, but I know
Speaker 1: that's something. They say. He's a box office draw. Michelle
Speaker 1: Williams not so much. I I do have to. I
Speaker 1: thought my Week with Maryland, which Michelle Williams started, for
Speaker 1: those of you who are looking for a movie to
Speaker 1: watch that you may have been off your I thought
Speaker 1: it was a very good movie. And I don't just
Speaker 1: say movies here are bad, so you can you know,
Speaker 1: those of you who are already writing out those emails,
Speaker 1: you can stop. There are lots of movies that I love.
Speaker 1: I just like to call out movies that people like
Speaker 1: for the wrong reasons, particularly reasons of politics, or you know,
Speaker 1: it's everyone's supposed to like a movie, so we're all
Speaker 1: told it's so great, But I like to be the
Speaker 1: one who says, no, it's actually not good. Don't even
Speaker 1: get me started on Avatar and how terrible it is.
Speaker 1: I'll be here all night. Uh. That's the first example
Speaker 1: came to mix I saw. I think they're making a
Speaker 1: second one, which is just it's just it's like a
Speaker 1: form of torture. Avatar was horrible. Um, but Mark Wahlberg
Speaker 1: pay at one point five million, Michell Williams up pay hiss.
Speaker 1: But he's a much bigger actor than she is. As
Speaker 1: this as this stuff goes, now, I understand the immediate
Speaker 1: response you get there is buck He's not He's not
Speaker 1: a thousand times more valuable than she is. And that's true, right,
Speaker 1: I mean she she is a pretty well known actress,
Speaker 1: and like I said, the movie might be Maryland is
Speaker 1: a very good movie. I think you should go check
Speaker 1: it out. Um, but it's uh. It's also an example
Speaker 1: of well did she just say she would do it
Speaker 1: for free? Because if she agreed to do it for free,
Speaker 1: it's not an equal pay disparity, sexual discrimination thing. It's
Speaker 1: just as she said, she do it for free, he
Speaker 1: demanded money. I mean, there is a what the market
Speaker 1: will bear a component of all this discussion as well.
Speaker 1: But as you can see, there's an immediate you got
Speaker 1: paid disparity between a man and woman. It must be
Speaker 1: because of sexism. Well it could be, but in this case,
Speaker 1: he's a bigger actor. And what were the terms of
Speaker 1: her agreement? You know, if somebody just better at negotiating
Speaker 1: a deal for themselves than somebody else, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's fair to always just suggest or to to to
Speaker 1: assume that it's about sexism. Uh. Then you have another case,
Speaker 1: another me too situation here, and this one's also a
Speaker 1: little I'm I'm illustrating it to make a point, But
Speaker 1: I don't know all that. No one knows all the
Speaker 1: details yet. But here's what's going on. James Franco, whom
Speaker 1: I do not like as an actor. I don't know
Speaker 1: him as a person, doesn't matter. I don't like him
Speaker 1: as an actor, find him to be very self satisfied
Speaker 1: and annoying, and and don't like his whole stick. But
Speaker 1: he was on the Stephen Colbert Show last night, and
Speaker 1: while he was on Stephen Colbert Show, it can't Colbert apparently,
Speaker 1: by the way, I don't is he really is he
Speaker 1: a comedian anymore? Is he a political commentator who makes jokes?
Speaker 1: Some times? I think we know that Colbert is really
Speaker 1: just hashtag resistance comedian who sometimes is making jokes but
Speaker 1: has also doing a lot of finger wagging and moral
Speaker 1: preening and grandstanding and just trying to appeal to the
Speaker 1: coastal anti Trump audience as much as he can. Guys,
Speaker 1: not funny. His show stinks, And I really, and I
Speaker 1: mean that with all my heart. His show stinks. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they pay him like twenty million years. Stink though,
Speaker 1: so that's a good gig. And he though sat down
Speaker 1: with James Franco. He told Franco, who's gonna bring this up?
Speaker 1: Franco was at the I was gonna say the Oscars,
Speaker 1: but it's the Golden Globes and he was all He
Speaker 1: was also with the whole meat too thing. I forget
Speaker 1: he wore either wore something or he was part of
Speaker 1: the Meat too movement in some way there at the
Speaker 1: Golden Globes where he had all these actresses who you know,
Speaker 1: couldn't say a peep some of them about Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 1: You know, when it would have really mattered. But now
Speaker 1: everybody's you know, now everybody's a hero, and now everybody
Speaker 1: okay but Walberg. I'm sorry. Franco has had a few
Speaker 1: actors come out and call him out publicly on on Twitter,
Speaker 1: call him out on social media to say that there's
Speaker 1: something this guy did, some bad stuff, and I would
Speaker 1: just note that. Here is his response. He was asked
Speaker 1: about this by Stephen Colby. Here's how Franco responded to
Speaker 1: all this. There were some things on Twitter, UM today, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't. I haven't read them. I've heard
Speaker 1: about them. UM. Okay, First of all, I don't. I
Speaker 1: have no idea what I did to Ali Shed. I
Speaker 1: directed her in a playoff Broadway. I had nothing but
Speaker 1: a great time with her. Uh, total respect for her.
Speaker 1: I no, I have no idea why she was upset
Speaker 1: she took the tweet down. I don't. I don't know. UM,
Speaker 1: I can't speak for her. I don't know. UM the others.
Speaker 1: Look in my life, I pride myself on taking responsibility
Speaker 1: for things that I've done. I have to do that
Speaker 1: to maintain my well being. I do it. Whenever I
Speaker 1: know that that there's something wrong or needs to be changed,
Speaker 1: I make it a point to do it. The things
Speaker 1: that I heard that that were on Twitter, um are
Speaker 1: not accurate. Um. But I completely support people coming out
Speaker 1: and being able to have a voice because I didn't
Speaker 1: have a voice for so long. So I don't want to.
Speaker 1: I don't want to, you know, shut them down in
Speaker 1: any way. It's it's I think a good thing, and
Speaker 1: I supported all right, So I I know. Let me
Speaker 1: just say I know none of the facts here. I mean,
Speaker 1: nobody does really right except for James Franco and his accusers.
Speaker 1: So I'm not I'm a passing judgment on whether what
Speaker 1: any woman has claimed about Franco is true or not.
Speaker 1: I have no idea, and that's not for now. I
Speaker 1: just I want to look at another aspect of this,
Speaker 1: so just put that aside. And and I don't like Franco,
Speaker 1: as I told you, as an actor, but that shouldn't
Speaker 1: affect any of my judgment here anyway, uh, because that's
Speaker 1: just as an actor, and who cares? That doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing. If you're accused of sexual misconduct as
Speaker 1: as a as a guy, and you know, as a
Speaker 1: public figure. You know, if you're James Franco, I feel
Speaker 1: like you you gotta go one of you. There's gotta
Speaker 1: be one or two things going on here. Either you
Speaker 1: messed up and you better at a minute. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how severe this stuff is we're talking about it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is just harassment comments. I
Speaker 1: don't but I'm just trying to get it what seems
Speaker 1: to me to be a troubling trend here. You're you know,
Speaker 1: you either did some stuff where you didn't do some stuff,
Speaker 1: and if you didn't do anything really wrong, you know,
Speaker 1: if you didn't cross lines. If the accusations as he
Speaker 1: says there, he says, well, it's not accurate. If they're untrue,
Speaker 1: you should be able to say those are lies, and
Speaker 1: it's terrible that people would lie about me in that
Speaker 1: a And if they are lies, you shouldn't then have
Speaker 1: to say on top of it. But you know, I
Speaker 1: don't wanna you could see he was very He's very
Speaker 1: sort of it was a weird interview, right. The whole
Speaker 1: thing was kind of what you know, it's either true
Speaker 1: or it's not. If it's not true, you shouldn't then,
Speaker 1: And like I said, I'm not passing judgment on it
Speaker 1: being true or not. But if it's not true, as
Speaker 1: a guy, you shouldn't have to stand up there or
Speaker 1: sit there and say but you know, I I really
Speaker 1: support the movement and everything we hold On a second,
Speaker 1: these are not related things. This is about you, buddy,
Speaker 1: This about James Franco. Did James Franco do bad stuff?
Speaker 1: If James Franco did bad stuff, he should be held
Speaker 1: to account and he should be saying sorry at a minimum.
Speaker 1: I again, I don't know how serious the stuff is,
Speaker 1: but if it's not true, I really am troubled by
Speaker 1: the notion that now, as a public figure, as a guy,
Speaker 1: when something's not true, if it's not true, you still
Speaker 1: have to be like, but I really appreciate these women
Speaker 1: coming forward to share that No no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no no, this we're not getting this thing of
Speaker 1: like everybody has their truth. I'm sorry, And Stephen Colbert
Speaker 1: went on to say, you know, how do we adjudicate
Speaker 1: between different I didn't play that audio for you, but
Speaker 1: between different perceptions of events or something there's right and
Speaker 1: there's wrong. You know that you either did bad stuff
Speaker 1: where you didn't and if somebody's lying about you, you
Speaker 1: should be able to call that out without fear of
Speaker 1: seeming insensitive about the rest of the movement. You see,
Speaker 1: what's happened is that the individuals rights two to be
Speaker 1: able to get to the truth, to be able to
Speaker 1: defend themselves, that is being suppressed because now it's like
Speaker 1: your anti the movement, the me too movement, if you
Speaker 1: seem like you're too forcefully denouncing what are what would
Speaker 1: be false accusations here right, if in fact they're false.
Speaker 1: But I think you see what I'm saying. It's it's
Speaker 1: troubling to see somebody who clearly is taking issue at
Speaker 1: some level with some of the accusations, and and he
Speaker 1: has his impulse. You know, I think it's still you know,
Speaker 1: I still want to say that, you know, I'm so
Speaker 1: so respectful of the movement. It's also good and everything else.
Speaker 1: I mean, if he's caught and he's in trouble, yeah,
Speaker 1: then I understand why he's saying it. But if he
Speaker 1: didn't do anything, why has he got to say all
Speaker 1: that stuff? You know what I mean? All right, there's
Speaker 1: also some other folks out there who, as a very
Speaker 1: famous actress who's saying this me too thing has gotten
Speaker 1: out a hand. So I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about that, but I'll have you have to stay with
Speaker 1: me through the break and I'll give you the details.
Speaker 1: Stare right there. So I'm assuming a bunch of you
Speaker 1: fair number you probably know an actress by the name
Speaker 1: of Catherine Deneuve who was really the most famous French
Speaker 1: actress of her generation, but was what was globally known
Speaker 1: very very famous French actress um and she has signed
Speaker 1: a letter with over a hundred other French women in
Speaker 1: entertainment and it's a public letter that is just straight
Speaker 1: up denouncing the French counterpart because now this is this
Speaker 1: is become a global phenomenon, at least in the West,
Speaker 1: this whole me too movement, the French counterpart movement is
Speaker 1: called bellancetam Expose your pig, which is just a public
Speaker 1: shaming of any guy who in the entertainment industry particularly
Speaker 1: has acted in an untoward fashioned when it comes to women.
Speaker 1: That's the idea. But the the hun women writing this
Speaker 1: letter wrote the following. Rape is a crime, but insistent
Speaker 1: or clumsy flirting is not a crime. Nor is gallantry
Speaker 1: a chauvinist aggression. As a result of the Weinstein affair,
Speaker 1: there has has been a legitimate realization of the sexual
Speaker 1: violence women experience, particularly in the workplace, where some abuse,
Speaker 1: some men abuse their power. It was necessary, but now
Speaker 1: this liberation of speech has been turned on its head. Uh,
Speaker 1: these women are saying, look, this is this can't be
Speaker 1: the the new normal. Can't just be And I don't
Speaker 1: know again, I mentioned the Franco case. I don't know
Speaker 1: the details of whether that looks particularly bad form or not.
Speaker 1: But the new normal is that if your name turns
Speaker 1: up on some list, and there have been lists circulated,
Speaker 1: and or if your name comes out in the press
Speaker 1: as a sexual harasser, you know, the pressure is so
Speaker 1: strong to push you out right away, and I should not.
Speaker 1: This also is gonna have ramifications when it comes to
Speaker 1: main street businesses too, not just you know, not just
Speaker 1: stuff out in Hollywood and in politics and the media,
Speaker 1: news media. But it's gonna be the case. Now, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be corporate culture. You know, nobody's gonna want to
Speaker 1: have the No one's gonna want the bad press for
Speaker 1: we didn't take care of that harass er right away.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that anybody should be standing up
Speaker 1: for guys who are doing bad stuff. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that we should always look at every individual should have
Speaker 1: the right to prove his innocence right. Every individual should
Speaker 1: have a right to at least some semblance of of
Speaker 1: due process, including with their public image and their their reputation.
Speaker 1: I mean, your reputation is everything now, is you know,
Speaker 1: in business and and in corporate America and just any
Speaker 1: professional capacity. Your reputations everything because the Internet, no, all
Speaker 1: of our reputations follow us everywhere. So this letter from
Speaker 1: these hundred French women has the following quote. This expedited
Speaker 1: justice already has its victims, men prevented from practicing their
Speaker 1: professions as punishment, forced to resign, while the only thing
Speaker 1: they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal
Speaker 1: a kiss, or speaking about intimate things at a work dinner,
Speaker 1: or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose
Speaker 1: feelings were not mutual. End quote. So you know, I've
Speaker 1: been warning about this for a while because it's obvious
Speaker 1: this was going to happen, but it's true. I mean,
Speaker 1: somebody else needs to stand up and say, you know,
Speaker 1: if somebody leans in for a kiss and you know
Speaker 1: it's unrequited or you know it's not the responses hey,
Speaker 1: no that I don't think of you that way, or
Speaker 1: we work together, we shouldn't. The guy backs off and
Speaker 1: it's like, I'm sorry, I miss let us to the
Speaker 1: situation and then continues to be a you know, a
Speaker 1: respectful human being and a professional. Doesn't make him a
Speaker 1: bad guy. Actually just makes him a guy. That's the truth.
Speaker 1: That's that's gonna I mean, I'm assuming the guy is
Speaker 1: not married and the woman is not married, but you know,
Speaker 1: just makes him a guy. And that's been kind of
Speaker 1: lost in all this. You know, this is people are
Speaker 1: saying some some pretty uh this concerting stuff about oh,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody made a comment you know, a long
Speaker 1: time ago. Look, you know this woman who wrote this
Speaker 1: whole piece about Matt Lower. Yeah, Matt Lower is married
Speaker 1: and he's gross and he is a pig, and he
Speaker 1: should have been tossed a long time ago. But you know,
Speaker 1: she chose to have an affair with this guy. And
Speaker 1: there was never or any like you better or else.
Speaker 1: It was just you know, he caught her eye, she
Speaker 1: caught his eye, and then then off into the break room.
Speaker 1: They went, I mean, it's bad behavior, to be sure,
Speaker 1: but that's not in the same category like the Weinstein stuff.
Speaker 1: And that woman is not some martyr for the call
Speaker 1: I ain't. I don't know this is this has gotten
Speaker 1: out of control. These the French women see it that way.
Speaker 1: That sign this letter at least, so there's that. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about the Obama Presidential Library, all the first drawings
Speaker 1: of it today. We can discuss that it's a library
Speaker 1: apparently that's not gonna have any books. I mean that,
Speaker 1: that's what they're saying. We'll be back, okay, winfree for president.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts? You know? It wasn't that a fabulous speech?
Speaker 1: And hearing Oprah's voice and her energy and her passion
Speaker 1: and her determination, it's inspiring. Is the country hungry for
Speaker 1: another mega celebrity billionaire? I don't know, Hey, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: not sure if Oprah's Oprah's the next president of the
Speaker 1: United States or not. I don't know why. I just
Speaker 1: want to play this because I want to make fun
Speaker 1: of Lizabeth Warren mostly, and also Ocean Camarontum. Hello. But
Speaker 1: then you had Elizabeth Warren there too. That just amation
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, it was so good. She's about as charming
Speaker 1: as Hillary. That Elizabeth Warren about his charming Hillary, which
Speaker 1: is is saying quite something, isn't it. I like the
Speaker 1: Trump said that he would beat Opra, but then he's like,
Speaker 1: I like Oprah, Opra is cool. So you know, it's
Speaker 1: Rob's Trump's a good guy. Everyone needs to calm down,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not the coast. Have a few laughs.
Speaker 1: It's not that bad, and you're gonna hang out with Trump.
Speaker 1: It's good everyone, you know, I know, you know, But
Speaker 1: people don't listen to the show. We need more Democrats
Speaker 1: listen to the show. We can convert them here. This
Speaker 1: is like a Democrat conversion tank. You know. We can
Speaker 1: convert democrats here to to being not even Republicans, just
Speaker 1: being sane people who understand politics in the world around
Speaker 1: them better. Maybe that should be something we take on here,
Speaker 1: a special project, the Freedom Hunt Conversion Project. We we
Speaker 1: convert Democrats to a conservatives or Republicans. I don't I
Speaker 1: hope we've kind of moved past that for a while,
Speaker 1: and it was so much more fashionable to say conservative
Speaker 1: than Republican. I'm like, yeah, I know, conservatism is the
Speaker 1: ideology Republican is the party. But yeah, come on, right,
Speaker 1: parsing a little bit reminds people who are like, well's
Speaker 1: it's not a democracy, it's a republic. Yeah, but when
Speaker 1: we say you know, our democracy, we mean that in
Speaker 1: kind of a general way. Right, people are about to
Speaker 1: eat on me. No, we don't. I know, I know,
Speaker 1: same thing, all right, So I toltdally. I was gonna
Speaker 1: talk about something else, and then I just wanted to
Speaker 1: play the word. Oh yeah, the Obama Presidential Library. How
Speaker 1: could I forget? Uh. The latest of that is that
Speaker 1: there's a a schematic a drawing that's out the show.
Speaker 1: It's this very large. It looks like, h it really
Speaker 1: looks like a monument more than a library. Um, maybe
Speaker 1: that's intentional, but here's what the Fox is reporting on this.
Speaker 1: The Obama Foundation is taking an unconventional approach to the
Speaker 1: Presidential Center and library being planned in Chicago. It's opting
Speaker 1: to host a digital archive of President Barack Obama's records,
Speaker 1: but not keep his hard copy manuscripts and letters and
Speaker 1: other documents on site. That means no thumbing through the
Speaker 1: ex president's correspondence on the health care fight or first
Speaker 1: drafts of a state of the Union address end quote. Okay,
Speaker 1: so maybe I'm missing something here. But if you're gonna
Speaker 1: have just a digital storage facility of Obama's presidential documents,
Speaker 1: I think that's called the computer. What am I missing?
Speaker 1: You don't need enormous building if you're not actually gonna
Speaker 1: keep stuff in it. Ah, but sure enough, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there will be, uh, there will be some stuff in
Speaker 1: the Obama Presidential Library. It just kind of it seems
Speaker 1: kind of fitting in a weird way to other than
Speaker 1: it that the Obama administration's uh building dedicated towards books
Speaker 1: and and study and transparency is actually gonna be a
Speaker 1: digital archive, and that means they're gonna use it for
Speaker 1: other stuff. It's it's not going to be a library
Speaker 1: per se. It's gonna be a huge building built to
Speaker 1: the greatness of Obama and his administration without books in it.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a lot of I don't I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're gonna keep there. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we all know this, right data storage on in the
Speaker 1: in the digital era. You know, you could fit all
Speaker 1: the all the Obama documents on one computer pretty easily,
Speaker 1: probably on a thumb drive. I don't know how good
Speaker 1: the thumb drive is anyway, This is just kind of
Speaker 1: a random thing they've got going on there. Now we've
Speaker 1: also got we got this video from I think I
Speaker 1: have time to do this too before you close up
Speaker 1: shop and the Freedom Hut come up here Shore like
Speaker 1: this video changing gears here from Campus Reform And is
Speaker 1: this an Ammi horro Is this zombies? Ammy Horowitzer? No,
Speaker 1: No different, different video. Sorry, Ammy high five. We'll get
Speaker 1: your stuff on later on in the week. I'm me
Speaker 1: send me an email today. I'm getting confused. I like
Speaker 1: Ammy Ammi's got he's got Gusto. But we got this
Speaker 1: video from Campus Reform also a great group asking Antifa Antifa.
Speaker 1: We need to get that drop. We need to have
Speaker 1: that ready to go. Whatever we can trump with Antifa,
Speaker 1: I'll pull that Antifa. But you've got a bunch of
Speaker 1: people being asked by Campus Reform who are they're so
Speaker 1: called anti fascists on campus? What is fascism? A great
Speaker 1: question to ask anti fascists. Here's what they said, How
Speaker 1: would you define what fascism is? I don't know. Fascists,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's not an easy thing to define.
Speaker 1: How would you define fascism. Um, I don't really want
Speaker 1: to get into all that. I mean, you can't define
Speaker 1: it though, I don't want to talk about it right now.
Speaker 1: Fascism is increasingly upward. Um hier anarchical model that preface
Speaker 1: that puts white people and European people at the top.
Speaker 1: I would I would like to take their platform away.
Speaker 1: It sounds kind of fascist. I'm not the government. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if you really can call any of
Speaker 1: that a definition or even a vague understanding of what
Speaker 1: what we would say. Yeah, I don't think. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think if any idea what fascism is. I think
Speaker 1: antifa is supposed to be cool, and because antifa is
Speaker 1: supposed to be cool, they want to be a part
Speaker 1: of it. And they know that antifa is anti Trump.
Speaker 1: You know Trump is a fascist in what way exactly? Well,
Speaker 1: they can't. How can they know because they don't know
Speaker 1: what fascism is. I thought that was funny too. It's
Speaker 1: it putting European people at the top. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: so fascism in Italy, yeah, I mean it was about
Speaker 1: you know, ultra nationalism for Italians, but you know, it
Speaker 1: was a political system inside of Europe. I mean that
Speaker 1: they have no idea what they're talking about, none whatsoever,
Speaker 1: which is not surprising. But you'd think they might teach,
Speaker 1: they might teach the kids on a college campus something
Speaker 1: about fascism. I mean, I would tell you that in
Speaker 1: my day as a policy major, and I trash policize
Speaker 1: a major on a preregular basis, just because I like to.
Speaker 1: If you had asked me about, you know, what's a
Speaker 1: what's the working definition of communism? What's a working definition
Speaker 1: of fascism? If it wasn't picture perfect, it would have
Speaker 1: been good enough, you know, it would would have gotten close.
Speaker 1: But these days, just to be a part of the movement,
Speaker 1: just to see these people dressing in all black and
Speaker 1: opposing Trump, that's what it's really about. And I even
Speaker 1: I even download I read that book, The Anti Fascist Handbook,
Speaker 1: which is pretty long, i gotta say, and and pretty
Speaker 1: delusional in some of its stances. But it does go
Speaker 1: into the history of anti fascism, which was kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: So there's even a book written by a leftist for
Speaker 1: these leftists. They can download it on kindle it man.
Speaker 1: It might maybe even get a student discount. No idea whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's just all about what's politically fashionable, my friends. That's
Speaker 1: that's what drives so much of this. Um, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go roll into a quick break here. When I come back,
Speaker 1: we're gonna close up the Freedom Hut. Maybe talk a
Speaker 1: little about the Shields High podcast, which is amazing. Please
Speaker 1: check that out when you get a chance. On iTunes
Speaker 1: or on the I Heart app iTunes, you can subscribe
Speaker 1: Shields High. Just type it in and share with a friend.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. And I was just telling the
Speaker 1: team here before that. You know you're you're getting up there.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm thirty six now, and this morning I thought
Speaker 1: I had it all figured out. You know, I had
Speaker 1: a very busy but productive day planned. We'll woke up
Speaker 1: feeling good, ready to go. I was in Baltimore yesterday.
Speaker 1: I got in late last night, and sure enough, I
Speaker 1: reach up because I did a hit on Fox News
Speaker 1: this morning to talk some of you may have seen it,
Speaker 1: to talk about the encryption debate, and I managed I
Speaker 1: feel like I think I heard something like a pop,
Speaker 1: but that just might be my my mind playing tricks
Speaker 1: on me. But I reached up and something along the
Speaker 1: side of my neck. It felt like someone stabbed me
Speaker 1: with a knife. And then I started thinking about all
Speaker 1: these things that I'm told, like, you need to do
Speaker 1: more yoga, you need to stretch. You know, You're can't
Speaker 1: just go out there weekend warrior doing your lifting the
Speaker 1: weights and stuff and not do some stretching. And it's true,
Speaker 1: I don't stretch enough yoga. I always feel like I'm
Speaker 1: about to have a heart attacked everything. So that's probably
Speaker 1: not a I'm not sure that's the thing that I
Speaker 1: should really push too much, because it's just for me.
Speaker 1: For whatever reason, being still and quiet makes me feel
Speaker 1: more anxious. Maybe one of the reasons I love radio
Speaker 1: so much is that it's constant thought and action, and
Speaker 1: that you're talking and thinking and talking into thinking and
Speaker 1: it goes on for a while, unlike TV, which is
Speaker 1: like you're on talk for thirty seconds, you're done. It's
Speaker 1: a very different, very different approach. But yeah, I pulled
Speaker 1: something nasty in my neck, which is great because when
Speaker 1: I get home later, I'll just be like ms Molly,
Speaker 1: can I have a neck rob please? It should be
Speaker 1: like I I worked hard all day too, buddy, go
Speaker 1: you can go rub your own neck. So what was
Speaker 1: I gonna on the I didn't really get into this
Speaker 1: because it doesn't seem to be catching a lot of
Speaker 1: the attention in the headlines today. But on that dispute
Speaker 1: between law enforcement and the tech companies that I talked
Speaker 1: about on Fox Today this morning on America's Newsroom. Sanda
Speaker 1: Smith and Bill Hammer are two of the two of
Speaker 1: the greats, really great people in the news media business,
Speaker 1: by the way. But the debate's really interesting. It's one
Speaker 1: of the few places I find myself really going back
Speaker 1: and forth between, well, which side of this is, which
Speaker 1: side has the stronger argument? So here's the the summary
Speaker 1: version of it, and it's and this hopefully this isn't
Speaker 1: the leave talking because I took some of that earlier today.
Speaker 1: I know I'm winding a lot, I'm wanting a lot,
Speaker 1: But this is what happens. You come, you hang out
Speaker 1: with me and not and I'm gonna wind to all
Speaker 1: of you. Uh. The the the people who are worried
Speaker 1: about encryption on devices, right, they refer to this as
Speaker 1: the going dark quote going dark phenomenon and law enforcement FBI,
Speaker 1: current FBI Director Ray and and previous f FBI director
Speaker 1: Comey Boo. Uh. They say that they've had a few thousand.
Speaker 1: I forget the exact number, it's under ten thousand, but
Speaker 1: it's in the thousands of instances where law enforcement wanted
Speaker 1: access to a device of some kind that they just
Speaker 1: couldn't break the encryption on, and it brought there, it
Speaker 1: brought their um investigation to us and still, if not
Speaker 1: maybe to a total halt. So they're saying, look, we
Speaker 1: need a way that we can get into not just
Speaker 1: the device now, but also end to end encryption, because
Speaker 1: it's become very easy to download and get an app
Speaker 1: that encrypts your information, you send it to somebody else,
Speaker 1: it's encrypted on their device too. So I believe, and
Speaker 1: I'm not a I'm not a tech expert by any means,
Speaker 1: but I believe that that means that the the usual
Speaker 1: weak point of communication that law enforcement had an easy
Speaker 1: time exploiting for investigation purposes is that when you send
Speaker 1: something it can you know, they know where, they know
Speaker 1: where it went through, they know what time, they know
Speaker 1: what It was very very easy, right, But if it's
Speaker 1: encrypted and they can't break that encryption, now you got
Speaker 1: a real problem because it's not just oh, I can't
Speaker 1: get into someone's device to see their photos or see
Speaker 1: what they've stored on their device. It's people can now
Speaker 1: communicate without law enforcement necessarily be being able to get
Speaker 1: into Now big question then the question that I have,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure we could ever really get answers
Speaker 1: to this. When they say that it brings them to
Speaker 1: a halter a standstill, do they mean they can't get
Speaker 1: in at all, the FBI can't get in at all,
Speaker 1: to the encryption or uh, you know, the device, or
Speaker 1: that it's hard, that it's annoying. I think that's a
Speaker 1: very important distinguishing characteristic. Uh, that's not something I'm sure
Speaker 1: the FBI is gonna tell us one way or the other.
Speaker 1: You remember in the San Bernardino case, from that horrible
Speaker 1: jeehottest terror attack in California, a whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: shot and killed at a holiday party by two jee
Speaker 1: hottest in this country. Uh, they couldn't get into the device,
Speaker 1: but then eventually, and they wanted to make Apple do it,
Speaker 1: then they found a way in any way. So that's
Speaker 1: that's an example I think of what we're gonna see here,
Speaker 1: which is that if they really want to get in,
Speaker 1: I believe law enforcement, the federal government's gonna find a
Speaker 1: way to get in, but they want to be able
Speaker 1: to get in easily. The other side of this, though,
Speaker 1: so that that's the going dark phenomenon, is that you're
Speaker 1: gonna have you know, child sex traffickers, terrorists, I mean,
Speaker 1: the worst of the worst of the worst being able
Speaker 1: to hide their information and hide their communications from law
Speaker 1: enforcement in a way that will make all of us.
Speaker 1: Let's say that's the case for the that's why going
Speaker 1: darkness is such a problem. The other side, you have
Speaker 1: the backdoor phenomenon, which is what Apple and uh Facebook
Speaker 1: and Amazon, all these all the different mega as well
Speaker 1: as some more boutique ones that specialize in encryption and
Speaker 1: in the creation of encryption apps and everything else. They're saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: so what you're what you're telling us federal government, is
Speaker 1: that our entire business model is premised along the lines
Speaker 1: of creating safe and secure information storage and transfer, and
Speaker 1: you want us to put purposefully put holes back doors
Speaker 1: into that technology. And they're like, look, there's no way
Speaker 1: that we can put because what they always say is
Speaker 1: it's not like uh Facebook or in the better cases
Speaker 1: Apple r because they're encryption is really really excellent. It's
Speaker 1: not like Apple saying, Oh, we could get into that
Speaker 1: guy's phone, but we won't. FBI sorry, Apple saying we
Speaker 1: can't do it because we build it so that we
Speaker 1: can't do it. It's almost like this is a locksmith,
Speaker 1: and the locksmith is saying, yeah, I don't keep keys.
Speaker 1: I make a key for somebody and to give them
Speaker 1: the key. I don't keep a set of their keys
Speaker 1: in case somebody else wants to get into their apartment. Later,
Speaker 1: the FBI is like, oh, no, locksmith, you have to
Speaker 1: make a master key for everything that we can get
Speaker 1: whenever we want. You know. I think when you put
Speaker 1: it in those terms that an analogy is pretty apt here.
Speaker 1: And not only is that creating a back door that
Speaker 1: the FBI or the federal government can use whenever it wants,
Speaker 1: you know. And there's a lot we start to seeing this,
Speaker 1: see this with a counterintelligence investigation with Trump and the
Speaker 1: Russia all that stuff. There's a lot of ways that
Speaker 1: your Fourth Amendment rights can be abused, and the federal
Speaker 1: government has not been good about this really in the
Speaker 1: post nine eleven Patriot Act era. There there's been some abuse,
Speaker 1: there's been some problems, but even beyond that, it's like
Speaker 1: creating a weak spot and security system that can be
Speaker 1: exploited by anybody else. So not only is the FBI
Speaker 1: telling Apple, oh, we need you to be able to
Speaker 1: get into this when we tell you with a court
Speaker 1: order two, but it means that somebody else, some third
Speaker 1: party I don't know, Russian or North Korean hackers, they
Speaker 1: can look for that weakness and exploit it and they
Speaker 1: can get into your stuff and erase all your data
Speaker 1: or steal all your funds. Because the FBI wants a
Speaker 1: you know, wants an easier time getting into a few thousands,
Speaker 1: you know, a few thousand phones over there. It's a
Speaker 1: this is a tough call. I really I view it
Speaker 1: as a as a tough call. I don't see an
Speaker 1: easy answer here. So that's uh. That was from this
Speaker 1: morning on Fox. In case you missed it, I should
Speaker 1: have probably gotten a copy of the clip to put
Speaker 1: up on Facebook. By the way, the Shields High podcast
Speaker 1: is doing very well. It's getting the folks over here
Speaker 1: at the Freedom Hunt and uh at at Premiere Radio,
Speaker 1: which is my syndicator, which is the company I work for,
Speaker 1: here at iHeart Media, getting them very excited about things.
Speaker 1: And it's all because of you, um so, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for downloading and also spreading the word, but
Speaker 1: please continue to do so. It is very time intensive
Speaker 1: and resource intensive. Every single download of that show counts.
Speaker 1: If if each person listening to this live broadcast right
Speaker 1: now took uh twenty seconds to just share a it's
Speaker 1: a history podcast, as you know, I'm not. It's not
Speaker 1: our history blah blah blah. You know Trump rush lah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. No, it's a history podcast. If each
Speaker 1: person listening though sent that link from iTunes or shared
Speaker 1: it on their Facebook page, uh Air of the Shields
Speaker 1: High Podcast, we'd be among the biggest history podcasts out
Speaker 1: there by tomorrow if everybody listening to that. And we're
Speaker 1: already doing very well, and I just want to say
Speaker 1: thank you for that, but please continue to download, listen
Speaker 1: new episode coming out Monday, this coming Monday, and the
Speaker 1: following Monday. We're looking I'm shooting to do at least
Speaker 1: one full season of Mondays of the Shields Hie podcast.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a whole bunch of episodes, but I
Speaker 1: need you to keep pushing it for me, team, so
Speaker 1: thank you for that. Uh do check out all of
Speaker 1: our lateist by following at Facebook, dot com, slash Bucks,
Speaker 1: Sexton and Tomorrow already got a fun show plan for you,
Speaker 1: so be sure to join me for that. As always,
Speaker 1: no matter what shields high